Red Barn Angus said:
I thought this was a very interesting article. I do have a couple of questions though. In one place they indicated that Nevada land was worth $5,000 per acre. I think they are in for a rude awakening there as there was a really large ranch for sale that was discussed on Ranchers a while back. The asking price was $49.5 million and it figured out to be about $100 per acre. I think they are dreaming at the $5,000 figure.
The other point I noticed was that the state felt the Feds should just transfer the land to the state so it was no longer in US control. All this would do is give control to a different set of politicians and wouldn't put the land on the tax roles as it still would not be privately owned. I don't see that as a solution at all. That would just be a way for different politicians to skim the gravy. If it is truly going to be owned by the people then it would have to be sold to individuals who will pay taxes to support roads and schools and other public needs.
But I do agree the Bundy case got a lot of people talking and has certainly exposed the over reach of the federal government. I hope it continues. I mean I hope the talking continues, not the over reach of the feds.
No matter which state, if it is in state hands, the state can decide what is best for them to do with it. If they deem private ownership of whatever land can be sold is best for tax revenue, then they can sell it. If they deem it is better under state parks ect, that is for the people of the state to decide. If it is important enough to them, they can choose to make political choices locally. It isn't for people in New Hampshire to decide what is best for Wyoming.
If Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, Montana, or wherever fail to make a good choice, that is on them. Back to States functioning autonomously and in competition for the betterment of society. If one makes a great choice, the rest can choose to follow.