I think a basic issue here is that they're claiming this is to build housing, but this is not gonna help our housing issues:
- the housing crisis isn't about a lack of land to build on really
- there's a decent amount of vacant housing, but it's not meeting people's needs if it's far from jobs, schools, food, healthcare, or if it financially doesn't make sense
- especially in the western states where most of the BLM land is, building more housing surrounded by/abutting wild land creates/exacerbates fire risks, which perhaps makes new housing expensive or impossible to insure, etc.
So even setting aside the environmental or even ethical objections to this (did a property developer lobby for this?), it just seems like a bad way to accomplish their stated goals.
deepsquirrelnet · 17m ago
I live in the West and have spent a lot of time on BLM land and in rural parts of Utah. The housing argument seems specious to me. BLM land is often on the extreme end of rural. A lot of it is uninhabitable - no utilities, no buildable acreage, no jobs nearby, very limited accessibility.
I don’t see it as a good faith argument, but open to be corrected.
jjulius · 1h ago
I want to preface this by clarifying that I am by no means intending to defend this at all - I backpack frequently and greatly value our public lands, and don't want to see them sold. However...
As it stands now, the text of this specifically calls for only .5 to .75% of the 250M acres for both USFS and BLM lands to be sold. No more than 1.5% of the 250M acres will ultimately be sold off. Further, they need to be sold off for specific purposes, and these purposes need to be cost-efficient for the buyer. The map on the page absolutely looks scary, but that fear is diminished a fair bit when you realize that less than a percent of the lands in each color will be sold, and those that are sold are likely not going to be spaces that are deep in the forest and are expensive to reach and develop.
By no means do I want to see this happen, I just wish that folk like Wilderness Society were a bit more clear on what to expect.
weaksauce · 47m ago
> I just wish that folk like Wilderness Society were a bit more clear on what to expect.
that just means the stuff that is easier to access is going to be prioritized. there's already 17+ classic rock climbing destinations that are in the proposed areas which could be sold off to his cronies. nobody is going to be buying up the land in the middle of nowhere with no access to it. this is devastating regardless of the absolute percentage.
beej71 · 9m ago
Not only that but it's the access points that get bought up.
detourdog · 1h ago
The maneuver seems to be to offset tax cuts this budget year. I think they need to set a precedent so they can offset tax cuts through subsequent years.
ryandrake · 55m ago
I doubt anyone behind this legislation cares about offsetting tax cuts. This isn't about raising money--it's about transferring assets from the public into wealthy, private hands, like these guys[1]. It's always about that.
This should be the top comment every time this subject comes up.
jjulius · 1h ago
Definitely a concern that I share, but I also wonder if it's a matter of diminished returns and to what degree that will impact things. Just because it's highlighted as sellable doesn't mean that it's easy and cost-efficient to develop.
bbor · 1h ago
I agree with the general sentiment, but it’s worth pointing out that this is a drop in the bucket compared to the tax cuts, AFAIK :(
darth_avocado · 1h ago
The rationalization that is being provided here is exactly the goal. It’s not to sell all the land right at this moment, but to set a precedent and sell it piece by piece over an extended period of time because people have extremely short memory. They used to fight tooth and nail when it came to raising the debt ceiling by billions, now we raise it by trillions every year. It’s the same playbook here. People will justify the sale by saying it’s 1-2% of the land, and over a couple of decades we’ll be losing that much every year.
Tokumei-no-hito · 1h ago
what governs how frequently that % can be sold or increased?
maybe a better question is - why? even if it's 0.01%, what is the (hopefully legitimate) purpose of this?
cvoss · 37m ago
Congress can generally choose to sell whatever whenever. All they have to do is say so in a bill.
The proposed purpose is residential use. See my other comment for the text of the law.
kjkjadksj · 1h ago
It is a slippery slope. How often will the republicans be drawing from this well now in the future?
darth_avocado · 1h ago
It’s not a single party issue. Drawing from the future is how we got into this big of a hole in fiscally and now is being used as an excuse to sell the land to fund the irresponsible spending.
jjn2009 · 1h ago
I wish everyone also felt this way about the national debt.
Spooky23 · 1h ago
They need a new schtick now that the debt ceiling is going away.
s1artibartfast · 52m ago
I will be looking for places specifically deep in the forest. Ideal for a hunting lodge or accessing the remaining wilderness. Perhaps a small campground or cabins for others.
Glyptodon · 1h ago
How do we have any idea which lands will be sold? In many ways, the lands the public least would want to be sold are the ones that someone would be most interested in, and that kind of thing is exactly what I'd expect from the Trump administration - find a billionaire and sell them 100 acres right next to national park for a "residence."
cvoss · 40m ago
All: Please consider reading the proposed text of the law [0] and pass judgment directly on that, rather than one organization's hot (and to the cursory reader, misleading) take on what they think is about to happen.
The proposed law is clear and readable. The relevant part starts on p. 30.
The law anticipates that the States themselves and local governments will be among the buyers, and priority consideration is given to them.
State and local governments, including the sovereign Indian Tribes must be consulted regarding which land goes up for sale.
Use of the sold lands must be residential or otherwise contributing to community needs associated with residential development.
The land cannot be sold for less than FMV.
For private buyers, sales are designed to be competitive to make it hard for a single buyer to end up with many tracts.
"Beautiful"... taking away Medicaid from many Americans and peddling away public land to fund tax cuts for the wealthy.
This will likely also require raising the debt ceiling further; apparently DOGE did not save as much money as they told us they did. What a farce, what shameful theater.
readme · 52m ago
Well how else are the rich supposed to buy the land, silly?
Glyptodon · 1h ago
Sabino Canyon is on this map and is a very popular nature complex in Tucson relatively adjacent to a large amount of expensive real estate. I can only imagine how much controversy there is going to be if they actually try to sell it to create more luxury housing when tons of older people with money have built custom homes on large lots nearby explicitly because they want to border or be near public land.
readme · 51m ago
The irony
vjvjvjvjghv · 1h ago
This will make outdoors activities even harder. With no Right to Roam law like Britain has, it will be even more difficult in the West to navigate between public and private land. And when I look at the map, they are trying to sell off areas that have very popular hiking trails.
And the money this will generate will probably barely pay for a B-2 flights.
snowwrestler · 25m ago
Sen Mike Lee of Utah is behind the provision; he is Chair of the Senate committee on energy and natural resources. His stated interest is to make land available for private development around existing localities in Utah that are “hemmed in” by federal land.
However, the bill is being considered under reconciliation rules so it supposed to only do things related to revenue, mandatory spending, or federal debt. So as a technical matter, the land sales are in the bill purely as a revenue raiser. A lot of folks who might be sympathetic to Sen Lee’s interest in housing are very uncomfortable with what is on paper a straight land-for-money sale. Seems like a bad precedent, like a dairy farm that starts selling its cows to pay expenses.
A few Republican senators have stated opposition: Crapo, Risch, and Daines are what I’ve seen so far. With 53 GOP members, they can’t afford to lose any more.
Personally I’m sympathetic to the housing needs of localities in the West. But I don’t think this belongs in a pure budget bill, and I feel like the long-standing movement to “privatize the West” has poisoned the well and makes it hard to believe this actually just a little housing thing.
wingspar · 1h ago
I’m sympathetic to the view that this is bad, then I recall the 80% of Nevada is owned by the federal government.
Keep in mind that federal ownership doesn't mean that the land can't be used productively or generate revenue. Mineral rights, range leases, and many more things don't require selling the land. Having large regions close to their natural state is also a priceless treasure, and checker-boarding them, or ruining the view at national parks, is a real net negative. (That said, I do think there probably are federal lands it could make sense to sell. But I have no confidence coming up with an arbitrary amount of land to sell to raise revenue is a good policy.) Also keep in mind, that transforming some of these areas to residential use might have complicated impacts on water use and wetlands, though presumably less than agriculture would.
plantwallshoe · 1h ago
You say that like there is some inherent reason that it’s bad. Federal land belongs to you, to me, to all Americans. This land belongs our children. We’re selling it off to pay for tax cuts for the super wealthy.
wingspar · 1h ago
Is it a travesty that 0.8% of New York is owned by the federal government?
80% is inherently too much.
wwfn · 51m ago
.8% is a bit misleading. Public Land is 37% (as of 1991) [1] of the state. The ADK park is state owned/managed and huge. Catskill region also has lots of public land. They're both amazing places I'm happy don't look like the US side of Niagara falls [2]
You have stated that twice now, but not explained why you think so.
yongjik · 49m ago
New Amsterdam was founded on 1624, ~150 years before the federal government. You're comparing apples and oranges.
plantwallshoe · 50m ago
Why?
bigstrat2003 · 1h ago
> Federal land belongs to you, to me, to all Americans.
So if it belongs to me, can I build a house there? Plant crops? Go hiking or camping? Can I do these things whenever I please without asking anyone? Because I wouldn't say "that land belongs to me" in any meaningful sense. National parks aside, I don't see how citizens benefit from the government owning large tracts of land.
evilduck · 45m ago
Planting and harvesting are managed activities to protect the local ecosystem but there are permits available for both activities. You are also free to go hiking and camping within the rules (distance requirements from roads and trails, wildfire management restrictions, stay limits to prevent lasting damage, etc) across the _vast_ majority of publicly owned lands. Even building structures can be done in specific circumstances with permits or leases.
This is all such easily accessed information direct from NFS, NPS, and BLM government websites, it's impossible to not view your comment as written in bad faith. Public lands are broadly your lands to enjoy and use as they exist in their natural state, so long as you're not depriving others of the same access.
plantwallshoe · 37m ago
I would guess it wasn’t bad faith but rather pure ignorance from someone who doesn’t spend much time outdoors.
cheema33 · 4m ago
> So if it belongs to me, can I build a house there?
It is shared ownership. You want to build private property on land that everybody owns?
lukeschlather · 57m ago
Most national lands, you can in fact go hiking or camping there without asking anyone for permission. Some are permitted but only high-traffic areas. In the national forests for the most part you can literally pull over on the side of the road anywhere and camp.
plantwallshoe · 42m ago
> Go hiking or camping? Can I do these things whenever I please without asking anyone?
Yes, you can. I do it frequently.
s1artibartfast · 48m ago
I'm a big fan of camping in federal lands. No permits like stupid state parks, just a 2 week limit on location. I like to 4x4 on old trails, pick a wild spot that looks good for camp, then break out the axe to find firewood.
If you are not constrained by a vault toilet and pack your own water, it is a playground.
tokai · 1h ago
I don't get why recalling that change your mind. If anything its a reason for not selling any land to keep so much control on public hands.
abeppu · 28m ago
Nevada became US territory through the treaty of Guadelupe Hidalgo, and the US paid per acre ceded. Who should it have gone to? Lots of people fought in the Mexican-American war, and the military was funded by taxpayers. Is it wrong for it to become public land in that context?
And frankly Nevada is mostly land that no one wanted. Because it's mostly in the endorheic basin, and the soil is not great for agriculture. The BLM will let you graze animals without having to buy the land, and because it's so arid and pasture use will degrade the existing vegetation, IIUC it wouldn't make sense to purchase. I think federal ownership is kind of natural when the nation wants territorial control, but the land itself isn't capable of being productive.
rurp · 1h ago
Why would those numbers mitigate how bad this is? Public land is awesome and open to everyone. These areas are currently used by millions of hikers, hunters, ranchers, miners, researchers, campers, OHVers, and so many other groups.
These sales will close the land to a few wealthy people/businesses, or be destroyed by extractive industries. Once these areas are sold they will be lost forever, after being open for generations. All so billionaires, who currently pay a lower effective tax rate than most HN posters, can pay even less.
socalgal2 · 58m ago
> These areas are currently used by millions of hikers, hunters, ranchers, miners, researchers, campers, OHVers, and so many other groups.
Do you have evidence that "most" of Nevada's 80% "public lands" are used by "millions"?
partiallypro · 1h ago
The government is going to sell it to whoever is in office's buddies and they are going to strip mine and log it. Most of Nevada and Utah are uninhabitable, but perfect for corporations that don't want to abide by environmental laws. It's actually hilariously insulting that Mike Lee is saying this is to help solve the housing crisis as if someone is going to build a housing development with no water or road access.
I even have libertarian diehard friends that are against this sale, if for nothing else than the fact you -can not- trust the government to sell it in a legitimate non-corrupt manner.
In Arizona we often go camping on this land. One of the best things about this state is the vast public lands that we can explore for free.
This makes me sad that my children won’t be able to visit some of my favorite camp sites.
darth_avocado · 1h ago
The US is one of the few countries in the world that has such a large amount of untouched natural landscape. It’s a shame short term thinking is allowing us to trade it for not that much in return. You could give the billionaires half a percentage point less in terms of tax cuts and that would generate more revenue than this sale of public lands.
Apreche · 1h ago
It’s not about generating revenue. It’s about intentionally transferring wealth TO the billionaires.
japhyr · 1h ago
It's also about seeing no value in a natural resource other than what you can extract from it, or how much you can profit if you buy it and put up a bigger gate.
mindslight · 1h ago
The Democrats (or whatever other party emerges as actual opposition) need to make part of their "picking up the pieces and rebuilding" platform a declaration making it clear that when the looters are finally kicked out, all of these "sales" of public assets to private parties will be declared fraudulent conveyances and undone - with refunds in then-inflation-devalued dollars, and subject to deductions for any damages to the assets.
7e · 1h ago
Courts would never uphold the notion of a fraudulent conveyance. Your thinking is delusionsal.
plantwallshoe · 1h ago
If the next president decides to do it then it won’t matter. The executive has been granted near absolute authority by the courts and they have shown they are incapable of enforcing any rulings against the executive branch.
Glyptodon · 1h ago
If Dems get a big enough majority they can pass a constitutional amendment to undo and punish the Trump administration and their cronies. Even without that, if they can come up with a way to criminally charge them with crimes they can probably get it back with civil asset forfeiture.
No comments yet
mindslight · 58m ago
Those "courts" are currently rubber stamping many of the out of control "unitary" executive actions out of political expedience. It's not far fetched to think that the trend will continue for reform. In fact I think a lot of the people supporting the current administration support the autocracy because they think it is about reform (because they seemingly have no ability to analyze the administrations' actual actions beyond team sport cheerleading, but I digress)
Escalating the dynamic is bad, because we ultimately need to pull out of the corruption. But continuing the dynamic of letting the looters keep their ill gotten gains having them declared as untouchable "private property" is worse.
Also even if this does not end up happening, broadcasting the intent far and wide puts a chilling effect on the current looting. The point is there needs to be possible consequences on the table to balance the official policy of having a fire sale.
readthenotes1 · 50m ago
Is it 2-3 million acres or 250 million acres? The article says both
cvoss · 32m ago
It's sloppy writing (if we're being charitable). The secretary, in consultation with State and local governments and Indian Tribes, would be authorized only to sell up to 3 M acres out of 250 M eligible acres.
zzzeek · 1h ago
Well I certainly hope we can clearcut a few million acres and get some new fossil fueled datacenters up and running, my Copilot has been writing shitty code lately
canyp · 51m ago
You're gonna need a lot of water too. Stop watering your goddamn plants, max twice a week.
nixgeek · 44s ago
Well, your obvious choices for datacenter cooling are in some climates evaporative /or/ using a heck of a lot more energy and a closed loop system. Pick your “problem”.
Water usage can also be optimized and is becoming part of the sustainability conversation at most of the hyperscalers with multi-gigawatt energy footprints:
The proposed law does not permit the land to be sold for this purpose.
nixgeek · 6m ago
It only enforces a restrictive covenant for 10 years. Buy land in 2026, build a few homes, repurpose to a datacenter campus in 2036. Looks like that would be entirely legal from reading the bill.
If they were concerned about future redevelopment they should have put a 50-100 year restrictive covenant in the bill, not only 10 years.
mistrial9 · 40m ago
the US Post Office and its properties are also in the works
bfrog · 1h ago
The republican playbook continues… profit for their family, friends, and donors at the expense everyone. Tax cuts aren’t needed, we already have relatively low taxes. Taxing all the ways rich dipshits work around taxes is very much needed.
- the housing crisis isn't about a lack of land to build on really
- there's a decent amount of vacant housing, but it's not meeting people's needs if it's far from jobs, schools, food, healthcare, or if it financially doesn't make sense
- especially in the western states where most of the BLM land is, building more housing surrounded by/abutting wild land creates/exacerbates fire risks, which perhaps makes new housing expensive or impossible to insure, etc.
So even setting aside the environmental or even ethical objections to this (did a property developer lobby for this?), it just seems like a bad way to accomplish their stated goals.
I don’t see it as a good faith argument, but open to be corrected.
As it stands now, the text of this specifically calls for only .5 to .75% of the 250M acres for both USFS and BLM lands to be sold. No more than 1.5% of the 250M acres will ultimately be sold off. Further, they need to be sold off for specific purposes, and these purposes need to be cost-efficient for the buyer. The map on the page absolutely looks scary, but that fear is diminished a fair bit when you realize that less than a percent of the lands in each color will be sold, and those that are sold are likely not going to be spaces that are deep in the forest and are expensive to reach and develop.
By no means do I want to see this happen, I just wish that folk like Wilderness Society were a bit more clear on what to expect.
that just means the stuff that is easier to access is going to be prioritized. there's already 17+ classic rock climbing destinations that are in the proposed areas which could be sold off to his cronies. nobody is going to be buying up the land in the middle of nowhere with no access to it. this is devastating regardless of the absolute percentage.
1: https://landreport.com/land-report-100
maybe a better question is - why? even if it's 0.01%, what is the (hopefully legitimate) purpose of this?
The proposed purpose is residential use. See my other comment for the text of the law.
The proposed law is clear and readable. The relevant part starts on p. 30.
The law anticipates that the States themselves and local governments will be among the buyers, and priority consideration is given to them.
State and local governments, including the sovereign Indian Tribes must be consulted regarding which land goes up for sale.
Use of the sold lands must be residential or otherwise contributing to community needs associated with residential development.
The land cannot be sold for less than FMV.
For private buyers, sales are designed to be competitive to make it hard for a single buyer to end up with many tracts.
[0] https://www.energy.senate.gov/services/files/DF7B7FBE-9866-4...
This will likely also require raising the debt ceiling further; apparently DOGE did not save as much money as they told us they did. What a farce, what shameful theater.
And the money this will generate will probably barely pay for a B-2 flights.
However, the bill is being considered under reconciliation rules so it supposed to only do things related to revenue, mandatory spending, or federal debt. So as a technical matter, the land sales are in the bill purely as a revenue raiser. A lot of folks who might be sympathetic to Sen Lee’s interest in housing are very uncomfortable with what is on paper a straight land-for-money sale. Seems like a bad precedent, like a dairy farm that starts selling its cows to pay expenses.
A few Republican senators have stated opposition: Crapo, Risch, and Daines are what I’ve seen so far. With 53 GOP members, they can’t afford to lose any more.
Personally I’m sympathetic to the housing needs of localities in the West. But I don’t think this belongs in a pure budget bill, and I feel like the long-standing movement to “privatize the West” has poisoned the well and makes it hard to believe this actually just a little housing thing.
80% !!!
Over 50% of Oregon, and over 60% for Utah
https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_land_ownership_by_state
80% is inherently too much.
[1]: https://www.summitpost.org/public-and-private-land-percentag... [2] https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/runte1/prologue...
So if it belongs to me, can I build a house there? Plant crops? Go hiking or camping? Can I do these things whenever I please without asking anyone? Because I wouldn't say "that land belongs to me" in any meaningful sense. National parks aside, I don't see how citizens benefit from the government owning large tracts of land.
This is all such easily accessed information direct from NFS, NPS, and BLM government websites, it's impossible to not view your comment as written in bad faith. Public lands are broadly your lands to enjoy and use as they exist in their natural state, so long as you're not depriving others of the same access.
It is shared ownership. You want to build private property on land that everybody owns?
Yes, you can. I do it frequently.
If you are not constrained by a vault toilet and pack your own water, it is a playground.
And frankly Nevada is mostly land that no one wanted. Because it's mostly in the endorheic basin, and the soil is not great for agriculture. The BLM will let you graze animals without having to buy the land, and because it's so arid and pasture use will degrade the existing vegetation, IIUC it wouldn't make sense to purchase. I think federal ownership is kind of natural when the nation wants territorial control, but the land itself isn't capable of being productive.
These sales will close the land to a few wealthy people/businesses, or be destroyed by extractive industries. Once these areas are sold they will be lost forever, after being open for generations. All so billionaires, who currently pay a lower effective tax rate than most HN posters, can pay even less.
Do you have evidence that "most" of Nevada's 80% "public lands" are used by "millions"?
I even have libertarian diehard friends that are against this sale, if for nothing else than the fact you -can not- trust the government to sell it in a legitimate non-corrupt manner.
This makes me sad that my children won’t be able to visit some of my favorite camp sites.
No comments yet
Escalating the dynamic is bad, because we ultimately need to pull out of the corruption. But continuing the dynamic of letting the looters keep their ill gotten gains having them declared as untouchable "private property" is worse.
Also even if this does not end up happening, broadcasting the intent far and wide puts a chilling effect on the current looting. The point is there needs to be possible consequences on the table to balance the official policy of having a fire sale.
Water usage can also be optimized and is becoming part of the sustainability conversation at most of the hyperscalers with multi-gigawatt energy footprints:
https://sustainability.aboutamazon.com/natural-resources/wat...
If they were concerned about future redevelopment they should have put a 50-100 year restrictive covenant in the bill, not only 10 years.