should the GOV't buy up more land?

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - should the GOV't buy up more land?

Posted: 10/26/2004 4:45:53 PM EDT

i am riding around today watching all this new housing and businesses going up and started wondering if it would be a good idea for the GOV't to buy up some more land so we actually will still have some woods to look at?

what do you guys and gals think?

Posted: 10/26/2004 4:47:02 PM EDT

[#1]

no it should be given to me

Posted: 10/26/2004 4:47:06 PM EDT

[#2]

And bring the taxes up more?

Posted: 10/26/2004 4:48:03 PM EDT

[#3]

You want to save the woods, you buy them. The .gov owns/controls too damned much land as it is.

Posted: 10/26/2004 4:48:22 PM EDT

[#4]

Move to Colorado, plenty of Federal land there and it won't be developed.

Let private groups like the Nature Conservancy buy up the open land in the east.

Posted: 10/26/2004 4:49:24 PM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
Move to Colorado, plenty of Federal land there and it won't be developed.

Let private groups like the Nature Conservancy buy up the open land in the east.

+1.

<---huge fan of the nature conservancy, and any other group that puts their money where their mouth is.

Posted: 10/26/2004 4:50:28 PM EDT

[#6]

Why not, they already own it all anyway. Why do you think you have to pay them rent every year?

Actually though, I am for it. If the land developers have their way there'll be nothing left.

Posted: 10/26/2004 4:50:59 PM EDT

[#7]

your probably right on that one...stupid question in my part

Quoted:
And bring the taxes up more?

Posted: 10/26/2004 4:59:20 PM EDT

[#8]

You should have a local land trust. If not - start one. You can also get involved in your community on planning boards and regs. You could go out and collect signatures to put a question on the ballet limiting growth in your area. As an example, in one town near me, there is a 2 year waiting period to get a permit to build a home.

Posted: 10/26/2004 5:24:22 PM EDT

[#9]

The govt owns something like one-half of all land in the USA.

Posted: 10/26/2004 5:26:28 PM EDT

[#10]

It most definitely should, it should buy all the land on the border with mexico and canada and Build a huge unpnetrable steel wall with machinegun turrets manned by MUA.

Posted: 10/26/2004 5:27:14 PM EDT

[#11]

WHY?????

so they can close it off to hunters like me???

fuck that shit.

Posted: 10/26/2004 5:30:53 PM EDT

[#12]

No, the government already owns too much.

Posted: 10/26/2004 5:33:57 PM EDT

[#13]

There are more frickin rural areas in this country that some of you city folks know what to do with.

The government owns way too much as it is. The government should be SELLING THE LAND for a reasonable price of course.

Posted: 10/26/2004 5:35:48 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Move to Colorado, plenty of Federal land there and it won't be developed.

Let private groups like the Nature Conservancy buy up the open land in the east.

+1.

<---huge fan of the nature conservancy, and any other group that puts their money where their mouth is.

arowneragain

My company actually does work for the TNC, some good people overthere, however, I disagree with their views on how to manage forests though I saw an excellent looking shelter wood cut done on their land.

Government owns too much land. Because there is value in timber, there is insentive to keep in forests.

Sorry for the typo's, had too much rum tonight

Posted: 10/26/2004 5:37:02 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
There are more frickin rural areas in this country that some of you city folks know what to do with.

The government owns way too much as it is. The government should be SELLING THE LAND for a reasonable price of course.

Very often, I set on top of a moutain and look at the vest views of rural forested land and think just what the hell are people talking about the lack of open spaces?

Posted: 10/26/2004 5:40:07 PM EDT

[#16]

Folks,

I could go on and on obout this subject, but I'll try and keep it short...

When the .gov (by this I mean the Forest Service, BLM, etc.) owns land they have to manage it. Special interest environmental groups want it managed *their way*, and generally sue the crap out of the .gov to get it so. Read what some of those groups are after - essentially they want to protect the land *from* the people, which means no recreation OF ANY SORT on it. Totally locked down.

This is a very serious problem to those of us in the Western half of the US, where most of the land is .gov controlled. We are used to using it for camping, hiking, etc. In washington dc politicians don't understand this concept and continue to pass restrictive rules, regulations and fees that are designed to keep us off our lands.

Maybe someone else can add some more here, I have to head home...

-Gator

Posted: 10/26/2004 5:43:24 PM EDT

[#17]

Have you guys traveled this country? Get off the expressways & travel some of the rural 2 lane roads. The .gov already owns and or controls vast stretches of land. Miles & miles of bare, vacant land. Once .gov aquires it almost nothing can be done on or with it. Far too much of our country's resourses are untouchable, locked away by .gov and "preserved".

Posted: 10/26/2004 5:45:48 PM EDT

[#18]

The government should sell all the land it owns that is not being used specifically for gov't function. ie: govt buildings and facilities, military reservations, and national parks.

Posted: 10/26/2004 5:46:39 PM EDT

[#19]

Most of the National Forest land in Virginia is nasy and steep and doing nothing but holding the world together though some areas do have great timber.

Posted: 10/26/2004 5:48:13 PM EDT

[#20]

Do you want to live in the innercity?

Me either.

So, NO, they shouldn't.

Posted: 10/26/2004 6:18:48 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
You want to save the woods, you buy them. The .gov owns/controls too damned much land as it is.

+1

Posted: 10/26/2004 6:28:29 PM EDT

[#22]

Some of you are incredibly short sighted. Where do you think you kids and grandkids are going to recreate? I live in an area with vast National Forest. I hunt, ski, snowmobile, hike, fish, etc on it. Everything else around here is being bought up in large parcels by developers who sell it in dinky lots and go back to Chicago with their money after raping the land here. Why should they care, they don't live here.
You guys will be the first ones bitching when there is nothing left. Get a clue.

Posted: 10/26/2004 6:33:47 PM EDT

[#23]

Remember that when your grandkids are living in a 150 story high rise packed in like rats, and get their 1 week per year scheduled visit to the pristine national forest.

Take a look at most national parks now and how overrun they are. Now look at how they pack the rats into the cities.

So just where do you think people should live? How dense are willing to pack them to preserve more of nature?

Posted: 10/26/2004 6:37:17 PM EDT

[#24]

Does the Constitution allow the gov't to own land outside military bases and D.C.?

Posted: 10/26/2004 6:44:58 PM EDT

[#25]

Get out of the urban areas! NOW!

Posted: 10/26/2004 6:46:38 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:
Most of the National Forest land in Virginia is nasy and steep and doing nothing but holding the world together though some areas do have great timber.

You got that right. Most of it down this way is too damn steep for llamas.

Quite a bit of good timber down here too, but good luck cutting it with all of the environmental groups organizing sit-ins and what not. God forbid someone got some use out of a tree rather than it falling and rotting. Damn Clinch Coalition.

Posted: 10/26/2004 7:00:39 PM EDT

[#27]

Hell no!

It's bad enough that they try to tell you that 50-65% of your own land must be left in it's natural state, now you want them to buy more land up?
archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?c=1&slug=critical26m&date=20041026&query=king+county+council

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - should the GOV't buy up more land?

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us