Normal Americans won't see a single acre of it. Corporations and 1% individuals will buy it for pennies, subsidized by tax payer.
2 months ago | 1
It's been a long week, and we probably won't know how it goes until Monday. Mike Lee has been at this for years. I liken him to the Public Lands Terminator. " He cannot be reasoned with, he cannot be bargained with, he doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear, and he absolutely will not stop - EVER." This week has just been one more item on his desire to sell public land. Never mind the whole "state transfer" BS which has been the primary route. "Manage our lands" my ass. I've had to deal with private property FAR too much to fall for that horse shit. Anyway, he sure has kicked up a hornets nest this time. Now everyone knows about this ongoing fight, not just Hunters. It's great to see all outdoors communities regardless of political affiliation, united on this.
2 months ago | 1
Where does USA hide its data centers? Just look at recent sales of public lands. Where does USA store its water reserves to keep those data centers cool? Not next to fire prone zones. Oh, that tree has been there 500 years? Not anymore, the USA needs $, and this spot is our next parking spot. Profits above all! USA! USA!
2 months ago | 1
Clay, do you know if corporate REI is doing anything to fight this? Seems like they would be upset too. At least there customer base as a whole....
2 months ago | 0
This is a c&p of what I did for the video. Please understand that I'm not responding to your own words or position, but I think it will be valuable to c&p my opinion here: I've watched the full video, I've read the article recommended, and I've read the full text of the proposed legislation. After doing so, while making every effort that I could to give the benefit of the doubt to your viewpoint, I find myself in disagreement. From what I could see, reason, and understand; the proposal would not meaningfully bring about the fears you are concerned with. I would welcome meaningful and prolonged discussion on the topic further. I do wonder, if this were the 1800's, when the west (the American west) was being settled; if you would have been among those opposing the sell of the federal land that is now private. It certainly feels like you would be, using virtually the same rhetoric and line of reasoning as you do now to argue against the actions then. As one who has spent the vast majority of their life moving from one state to the next due to pcs-ing & other activities, being surrounded by federal land that is completely restricted by the gov, I see this proposal as having sufficient safeguards whilst enabling the land to finally be used when previously it has not been available whatsoever. I would like to note that even should the proposed legislation pass, the land will likely never be truly private as we are required to pay property taxes. That brings up a criticism I have of your argument. You said that this was a one time revenue source, but neglected that there are yearly property taxes that will have to then be paid on the land and there will also be taxes to be paid on each subsequent sale of the land. So to assert that this is a one time revenue source is inaccurate to say the least. It will also lead to the development of the land which, while not guaranteed, may lead to further revenue generation via multiple means (such as: rent, the building of a business, the growth and development of future generations, personal and possibly community gardens & farms, etc...) Furthermore, whilst on the subject of criticisms. You mentioned that this would only be for the wealthy, but neglect the very clear language that mandates that liquidation is to be done at fair market value. Market value that is majority dependent on the availability of surrounding land; in other words, as more land is made available in an area the overall market value will decrease leading to affordability. Additionally the sale of the land is to be done in a competitive way. Which will further drive down the prices and lead, again, to more affordability. You also mentioned that you, I, and the public or a nonprofit would only be able to buy two tracts in as single purchase whilst those who own surrounding land can purchase more, but that is a presuppositions that you, I , and the public or nonprofit don't as well own surrounding land. Do you not see the fault in that line of reasoning? Additionally, you neglect that because these land sales are public affairs, you or any other interested parties can join the auction and through creative means bypass the previous concern. You also spoke about section 3, subsections A-F, speaking about the priorities of consideration. At the end, and perhaps this is an error in my understanding/interpretation of what you meant or were referring to, you said that F made sense but none of the rest did... but then neglected to explain why subsections A-E made no sense, in my opinion they make plenty of sense. Additionally, you harped on subsection E, but neglected to actually judge the subsection standing on it's own merits or lack thereof. Instead you focused on what felt almost like character assassination, it very much seemed that the opposition was to the man submitting this proposal rather than the merits of the proposal itself... and this criticism applies to much of the video as a whole, not just this very specific incident. You spoke about a poll of Utah citizens that showed a super majority are against the general proposal at hand (not the specific proposed legislation, but the general topic of federal land sales). However, as far as I could find in the description, that poll was not linked. First I would ask, if you would link the poll so that we can all see it for ourselves. Secondly, because the poll is not available, I would ask who published the poll & how they conducted it. Thirdly, I would ask if you dove into the actual cross tabs of the poll yourself. I have sincere concerns that the poll, is misleading (as are many or even most these days), to say the least. There were other criticisms that I had in mind whilst typing this, but they've since fled my mind, so I will forbear continuing, save the following criticism which shall be the last. Throughout the video, while trying to make the effort to give your viewpoint the benefit of the doubt, it became increasingly difficult to do so due to the ever increasing emotion with which you displayed whilst arguing for your stance. I certainly understand that you are extraordinarily passionate and concerned about this subject to say the least, but you do a great disservice to your cause by allowing yourself to be so seized by emotion. It makes you seem less knowledgeable, professional, and sincere about the subject. Most importantly, it makes you seem as if you are not a rational individual, incapable of arguing the actual merits of this or possibly any position. Emotion generally has little merit in a genuine battle of ideas and often serves only as a means to manipulate those ignorant of the facts. When the facts prevail, that same emotion typically serves only to the detriment of those who employ it. I sincerely hope you will reflect on this criticism, even if you dismiss the rest. Once again; I welcome sincere, meaningful, and prolonged discussion and if so desired, debate, on this topic. I am willing to be convinced and if so done add my efforts to petitioning for this cause as I added and continue to add my concerted efforts towards the 2A cause which was/continues to be multiple calls and outreaches a day, on various platforms, to all involved congressional parties from leadership to individual members; totalling in hundreds if not thousands of calls, not to mention my many other outreaches on different platforms. Though I do want to note that I wasn't convinced of the 2A cause, as I was already a staunch advocate for her. Who knows though if the overlords will even allow this lengthy comment...
2 months ago | 4
Clay Hayes
Give this a watch and get moving! https://youtu.be/Z6AoMeSNLhM?si=GiMsB...
2 months ago | [YT] | 92