Transfer of Federal Lands to the States

greenrvgreen wrote:
The people who favor transfer to the states are so sure that the states would be responsible stewards of the land. But in fact the states have a track record of being just the opposite.

The reason there are so few state parks now is that the states squandered their original land grants from the feds. Most states could not wait to get rid of the land for whatever small price was offered--as long as it was cash.

It's true that federal land in AZ is not being administered the way many AZ residents would prefer. And it's true that out-of-state interests are being considered in land-use decisions for that federal land.

But how is that different from the group of out-of-staters currently encamped in Oregon. They claim to represent the "people" but almost all of the people who live there are begging them to leave.

With federal control you get due process, and the federal government's infamous concern for the individual. With state control you will get less due process, and the rights of individuals will be enhanced--as long as they are politically-connected, wealthy individuals.

And with federal management, you get more assurance the land will not be sold. In Wyoming, the State Land Board, consisting of five people, can decide to sell state land. All it takes is a majority vote of five people (that would be three votes) to sell state land. If Congress wants to sell federal land, it takes a majority vote of the House and the Senate and then has to be signed by the president.

Make no mistake, when a budget crunch develops in any state, that state will be pressured to sell land. It has happened repeatedly in the past. See the following website for proof:

http://www.statetrustlands.org/