I have concluded that we are witnessing in the political sphere today the wholesale deconstruction of our national public spaces and civic institutions by elected officials responsive to influences substantially unknown. And unknown by design. The last few decades have seen erosion of public support of public education, both emotional and financial. Plainly, conservative media have been gradually beating down public support by sheer repetition of slogans and falsehoods. Legislatures have withdrawn funding or applied unfunded mandates to public schools to the effect that when they fail to meet absurd goals, they congratulate themselves on their prescience. The claim that they want more accountability from teachers is a thinly vailed attempt to disband teachers unions. Teachers, being optimists and educated, are frequently of liberal disposition.  This is the application of propaganda and it works. Republicans are good at it because they know how to apply sustained fear in the hearts of voters too preoccupied in their own lives to research issues. The right owns the left side of several population bell curves and are advantaged by it greatly.

An AG from Oklahoma will soon be administrator of the EPA. For decades Republicans and conservative media have chanted the same message that regulations are bad with the subtext that they are inherently bad. They are bad for business and inhibit job creation they say. If discharging persistent pollutants into the air or waterways is bad for business, then tough shit. We do not need that kind of business.

Not a peep is uttered on the events that lead to the rule making by the agency. I lay this omission squarely on corporate media. Water pollution doesn’t make good television. Apparently even the success stories of agencies like EPA do not make compelling television. If you want to see a world unimpeded by environmental protection, go visit some of the industrial districts in China, Southeast Asia, or India. Tell me how the free market is working there. China by the way has gotten religion on environmental protection due to decades of rampant pollution.

 

Chaffetz withdraws bill, slinks back into hole

 

Representative Jason Chaffetz [R-UT-3] has introduced H.R. 621 which aims to direct the sale of 3.3 million acres of federal public land in the west. The bill is titled “H.R.621 – Disposal of Excess Federal Lands Act of 2017”.  Below is a copy of the bill.

115th CONGRESS
1st Session

H. R. 621

To direct the Secretary of the Interior to sell certain Federal lands in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming, previously identified as suitable for disposal, and for other purposes.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
January 24, 2017

Mr. Chaffetz introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources

A BILL To direct the Secretary of the Interior to sell certain Federal lands in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, and Wyoming, previously identified as suitable for disposal, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. Sale of certain Federal lands previously identified as suitable for disposal.

 (a) Short title.—This Act may be cited as the “Disposal of Excess Federal Lands Act of 2017”.

(b) Competitive sale of lands.—The Secretary shall offer the identified Federal lands for disposal by competitive sale for not less than fair market value as determined by an independent appraiser.

(c) Existing rights.—The sale of identified Federal lands under this section shall be subject to valid existing rights.

(d) Proceeds of sale of lands.—All net proceeds from the sale of identified Federal lands under this section shall be deposited directly into the Treasury for reduction of the public debt.

(e) Report.—Not later than 4 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate—

(1) a list of any identified Federal lands that have not been sold under subsection (b) and the reasons such lands were not sold; and

(2) an update of the report submitted to Congress by the Secretary on May 27, 1997, pursuant to section 390(g) of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–127; 110 Stat. 1024), including a current inventory of the Federal lands under the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary that are suitable for disposal.

(f) Definitions.—In this section:

(1) IDENTIFIED FEDERAL LANDS.—The term “identified Federal lands” means the parcels of Federal land under the administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary that were identified as suitable for disposal in the report submitted to Congress by the Secretary on May 27, 1997, pursuant to section 390(g) of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public Law 104–127; 110 Stat. 1024), except the following:

(A) Lands not identified for disposal in the applicable land use plan.

(B) Lands subject to a Recreation and Public Purpose conveyance application.

(C) Lands identified for State selection.

(D) Lands identified for Indian tribe allotments.

(E) Lands identified for local government use.

(2) SECRETARY.—The term “Secretary” means the Secretary of the Interior.

SEC. 2. Clarification regarding State laws.

Nothing in this Act shall affect the implementation of State laws, including State enabling Acts.

Suddenly we have a bill seeking to sell federal land “suitable for disposal, and for other purposes“.  I’ll add four comments:

1) federal land is public land, and not just for taxpayers, but all citizens,

2) the word “disposal” is a rhetorical kicker that is suggestive of salvage, and

3) the phrase and for other purposes is far too vague.

4) there is no language barring sale to foreign interests.

This bill is too shadowy and too soon. Citizens should have a chance to see for themselves what kind of land this is. We need transparency and some idea of who could buy and what is likely to happen to these lands. But more importantly, there should be some deliberation on the matter of what responsibility we have to future generations to maintain wild spaces for their use. Our public spaces in America set us apart from other nations who, because of their long and complex histories, were unable to plan for public spaces.

Do you really believe that you’ll be better off when this land is snatched up by monied interests?

A parting thought. Much of the land now occupied in the west was settled by homesteaders who developed the land and made a living from it. Why can’t that happen today? This land formed a basis for the inheritance of wealth for future generations. Did Mr. Chaffetz even consider this? Doubtful.

Advertisements