Politicians and editorial boards against land auction

February 22nd, 2006

Background: In an obscene attempt to privatize our public lands, the Bush administration proposes to auction to the highest bidder “isolated” forestland to pay for rural schools. Hundreds of thousands of acres will be chopped out of Bitterroot National Forest, the Columbia Gorge, and many other national treasures. If this scheme is allowed to proceed, year after year, we can expect our public lands to be sold to make up for the Bush-created national deficit.

Some of the “isolated” land for sale in Montana:

Oh, and even Department of Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey admits:

Rey acknowledged that some tracts will have public values as wildlife habitat, recreation access or other purposes […]

Denise Germann, public affairs officer for the Flathead Forest, said forest officials learned of the proposal only in the last week and are now reviewing the tracts. She said some have obvious conservation values, and the Flathead’s supervisor and district rangers will submit their concerns about including some lands on the list.

Wait? I thought it was all worthless?

In Nevada:

“The Bush administration seems determined to sell Nevada’s public lands to cover its record budget shortfalls,” U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in a news release.

Good.

U.S. Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., said the Forest Service’s proposal removes local input from how to manage public lands.

“The most appropriate and effective method for land disposal in Nevada is through the county-by-county public lands bills written by our congressional delegation,” Ensign said in a news release.

Don’t agree with that bill, but nice to see a GOP congressman coming out against it.

In Virginia:

U.S. Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Roanoke, said Congress should “thoroughly examine the impact of this potential sale.”

Another GOPer not lending vocal support. And, also:

U.S. Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Abingdon, said the land-sale proposal would lead to further sales of public lands. He is co-sponsoring a bill to continue the rural funding program without selling land. The program draws its money from the federal government’s general fund.

Florida’s Ocala Star-Banner editorial against the sale:

Selling off nearly 1,000 acres for development in the heart of this irreplaceable watershed and wildlife refuge is irresponsible. Setting such a precedent, too, only opens the door to even more sales and potential development and damage. We can think of few ideas worse than selling off the Ocala National Forest, even a small part of it, for private development.

California’s Tri-Valley Herald comes out against the sale:

Noting that Californias wildlands are diminishing at a rapid rate, Sen. Dianne Feinstein calls the proposal a terrible idea, equating it with selling public land to finance the presidents budget. Shes vowed to do what she can to kill it. A spokesman for the Sierra Club tapped our concerns by saying, These lands really belong to future generations and shouldnt be sold to the highest bidder. Theres no reason why the worlds biggest economic power needs to sell parkland to make ends meet.

Los Angeles Times against:

The national forest system was created for mixed uses — industry, recreation and wilderness. But it was never intended to be a cash cow that would pay the price for bad budgeting.

Lompoc Record against:

he White House can expect a fight on this one. California Sen. Dianne Feinstein called the selling of Forest Service land a “terrible idea, based on a misguided sense of priorities.”

In Missouri:

U.S. Sen. Jim Talent, R-Mo., shared that concern in a written statement.

“I’m not inclined to support the sale of land in Missouri to help schools in California,” Talent said in the statement. “We are going to hold hearings on this proposal in the committee, and these are the questions I’m going to ask the administration.”

Missouri’s other U.S. senator, Republican Kit Bond, also had a lukewarm response to Bush’s proposal. Bond wants more information about which land would be sold and what the sale would mean for conservation, Bond spokeswoman Shana Stribling said.

U.S. Rep. Kenny Hulshof, R-Columbia, was noncommittal about Bush’s plan.

“We must weigh the benefit provided to the public by keeping these parcels of land in the national forest against the funding challenges county administrators face by not having them on the local tax rolls,” Hulshof said in a prepared statement.

Good to see GOP scrutinizing…

In South Dakota:

“Funding our rural schools is very important, but it would be inappropriate to do so by selling parts of the Black Hills,” said Sen. John Thune, R-S.D. “The Senate is already working on an alternative proposal that would reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools law, and I will work to pass this viable option that does not include selling off our nations public lands.”

And the land is not valuable? Hm, some in Washington state think otherwise:

Still, if the land has to be sold, the city would like to get it because it is so near the system of dams, tunnels, pumps and reservoirs that supplies 80 percent of Snohomish County’s drinking water and generates up to 8 percent of the PUD’s electricity.

and…

Bush must get permission from Congress before his plan can take effect. He won’t get it from U.S. Rep. Rick Larsen, D-Everett.

“Congressman Larsen believes it is very important to properly fund rural school districts,” said Kim Johnston, a Larsen spokeswoman. “However, Rick does not believe that the president’s proposal to sell federal land is the right solution to this long-term funding problem.”

Florida’s Palm Beach Post against:

Selling irreplaceable public land under the guise of balancing the budget is a horrible idea. A better plan would be to dump the tax breaks that have depleted the budget.

Conrad Burns, R-MO, says:

Senator Conrad Burns says a Bush administration plan to sell off national forest land is — quote “dead in the water.”[…]

Senator Max Baucus has also come out against the proposal.

Cinci Post against:

Selling them to manufacture a one-time infusion of cash is, in the long run, foolish. Even some of the county officials who would benefit see that. They say the impact on their budgets would be miniscule compared to the impact of losing a tourist attraction should the sale open the door to more such auctions in the future.

In Colorado:

U.S. Rep. Mark Udall, D-Colo., said the sale proposal is in jeopardy.

“I don’t think you sell off the family jewels just for convenience,” he said. “This is about paying off a debt with priceless assets.”

In Colorado, more than 21,000 acres in 11 national forests and grasslands are on a preliminary list of potential auction candidates. The Forest Service has included land along the Mount Evans Highway, lands near Grays and Torreys peaks and a parcel west of Vail ski resort.

And more in Colorado:

Bush’s proposal incensed U.S. Rep. John Salazar, D-Manassa, because the parcels are being proposed for sale without community involvement and because he disagrees with how Bush has decided to fund rural schools.

“I have grave concerns about the sale of public lands without the consent and involvement of the community,” Salazar said Friday through spokeswoman Nayyera Haq. “The budget this administration sent to Congress last week has misplaced priorities. Rural schools need money and our children’s education deserves to have direct funding. Adequate funds for rural communities is an ongoing problem that won’t be solved with a one-time fix.”

And Denver Post against:

It would be nonsensical to sell your house to pay a credit-card bill, but the Bush administration recently proposed something similar regarding national forests and other public lands. To grab a small one-time cash boost, it wants to sell 800,000 acres of national forest and Bureau of Land Management properties primarily in the West.

Utah’s Salt Lake City Weekly against:

President Bush has a brilliant new plan to reduce the ballooning federal deficit: selling Utah’s public lands to the highest bidder. The administration is calling for the sale of more than 5,000 acres of U.S. Forest Service land in Utah and an undetermined amount of Utah acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management. The proposed Forest Service sale is part of a nationwide 300,000-acre sell-off the administration proposes as the only way to get promised money to rural schools. Also recently announced was the proposed February sale of oil and gas leases on more than 172,000 acres in Utah, including areas within spitting distance of Dinosaur National Monument. Never dreamed it would come to this, but can we have Reagan’s bulldozer-loving Interior secretary James Watt back, please?

Related posts: View from Harney County, Thanks Ron Wyden! (More anti-environment stuff), Extra trash? Extra charge!