I think a basic issue here is that they're claiming this is to build housing, but this is not gonna help our housing issues:

- the housing crisis isn't about a lack of land to build on really

- there's a decent amount of vacant housing, but it's not meeting people's needs if it's far from jobs, schools, food, healthcare, or if it financially doesn't make sense

- especially in the western states where most of the BLM land is, building more housing surrounded by/abutting wild land creates/exacerbates fire risks, which perhaps makes new housing expensive or impossible to insure, etc.

So even setting aside the environmental or even ethical objections to this (did a property developer lobby for this?), it just seems like a bad way to accomplish their stated goals.

I want to preface this by clarifying that I am by no means intending to defend this at all - I backpack frequently and greatly value our public lands, and don't want to see them sold. However...

As it stands now, the text of this specifically calls for only .5 to .75% of the 250M acres for both USFS and BLM lands to be sold. No more than 1.5% of the 250M acres will ultimately be sold off. Further, they need to be sold off for specific purposes, and these purposes need to be cost-efficient for the buyer. The map on the page absolutely looks scary, but that fear is diminished a fair bit when you realize that less than a percent of the lands in each color will be sold, and those that are sold are likely not going to be spaces that are deep in the forest and are expensive to reach and develop.

By no means do I want to see this happen, I just wish that folk like Wilderness Society were a bit more clear on what to expect.

"Beautiful"... taking away Medicaid from many Americans and peddling away public land to fund tax cuts for the wealthy.

This will likely also require raising the debt ceiling further; apparently DOGE did not save as much money as they told us they did. What a farce, what shameful theater.

This will make outdoors activities even harder. With no Right to Roam law like Britain has, it will be even more difficult in the West to navigate between public and private land. And when I look at the map, they are trying to sell off areas that have very popular hiking trails.

And the money this will generate will probably barely pay for a B-2 flights.

All: Please consider reading the proposed text of the law [0] and pass judgment directly on that, rather than one organization's hot (and to the cursory reader, misleading) take on what they think is about to happen.

The proposed law is clear and readable. The relevant part starts on p. 30.

The law anticipates that the States themselves and local governments will be among the buyers, and priority consideration is given to them.

State and local governments, including the sovereign Indian Tribes must be consulted regarding which land goes up for sale.

Use of the sold lands must be residential or otherwise contributing to community needs associated with residential development.

The land cannot be sold for less than FMV.

For private buyers, sales are designed to be competitive to make it hard for a single buyer to end up with many tracts.

[0] https://www.energy.senate.gov/services/files/DF7B7FBE-9866-4...

Sabino Canyon is on this map and is a very popular nature complex in Tucson relatively adjacent to a large amount of expensive real estate. I can only imagine how much controversy there is going to be if they actually try to sell it to create more luxury housing when tons of older people with money have built custom homes on large lots nearby explicitly because they want to border or be near public land.

Sen Mike Lee of Utah is behind the provision; he is Chair of the Senate committee on energy and natural resources. His stated interest is to make land available for private development around existing localities in Utah that are “hemmed in” by federal land.

However, the bill is being considered under reconciliation rules so it supposed to only do things related to revenue, mandatory spending, or federal debt. So as a technical matter, the land sales are in the bill purely as a revenue raiser. A lot of folks who might be sympathetic to Sen Lee’s interest in housing are very uncomfortable with what is on paper a straight land-for-money sale. Seems like a bad precedent, like a dairy farm that starts selling its cows to pay expenses.

A few Republican senators have stated opposition: Crapo, Risch, and Daines are what I’ve seen so far. With 53 GOP members, they can’t afford to lose any more.

Personally I’m sympathetic to the housing needs of localities in the West. But I don’t think this belongs in a pure budget bill, and I feel like the long-standing movement to “privatize the West” has poisoned the well and makes it hard to believe this actually just a little housing thing.

In Arizona we often go camping on this land. One of the best things about this state is the vast public lands that we can explore for free.

This makes me sad that my children won’t be able to visit some of my favorite camp sites.

The US is one of the few countries in the world that has such a large amount of untouched natural landscape. It’s a shame short term thinking is allowing us to trade it for not that much in return. You could give the billionaires half a percentage point less in terms of tax cuts and that would generate more revenue than this sale of public lands.

I’m sympathetic to the view that this is bad, then I recall the 80% of Nevada is owned by the federal government.

80% !!!

Over 50% of Oregon, and over 60% for Utah

https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_land_ownership_by_state

If you want to voice opposition there is a petition here: https://resist.bot/petitions/PXVZXD

Any reason to think this will benefit the average American in any way, or are we past that expectation from our leaders?

The republican playbook continues… profit for their family, friends, and donors at the expense everyone. Tax cuts aren’t needed, we already have relatively low taxes. Taxing all the ways rich dipshits work around taxes is very much needed.

Is it 2-3 million acres or 250 million acres? The article says both

Well I certainly hope we can clearcut a few million acres and get some new fossil fueled datacenters up and running, my Copilot has been writing shitty code lately

the US Post Office and its properties are also in the works

The Democrats (or whatever other party emerges as actual opposition) need to make part of their "picking up the pieces and rebuilding" platform a declaration making it clear that when the looters are finally kicked out, all of these "sales" of public assets to private parties will be declared fraudulent conveyances and undone - with refunds in then-inflation-devalued dollars, and subject to deductions for any damages to the assets.