Utah uses eminent domain on Fed land

[hornadylnl]

I have mixed feelings on this. I love our national parks and Federal land for hunting, fishing, shooting,and general recreation. Hunting is quickly becoming a rich man sport. Try booking a Elk hunt out west on private land. It will cost you 10-15 Grand. The government land is to be used by all of us when we want. At first when I saw the post I thought, hell yes, we'll give the ole govt a little taste. After thinking about it though, once you open the flood gates, the big ranchers with big bucks and good lawyers will start taking the land back for private ownership for "better use for the people"
The average person cant actually afford to buy enough land to really enjoy backpacking, hunting, shooting and ATV'ing

Why should I and other tax payers have to subsidize your love of nature?

 

[SavageEagle]

You beat me to it. This is how capitalism works if there is a market for it someone will provide the service for it! Uncle Ted owns alot of land that hasn't been destroyed, he is a nature lover and Im sure someone like him would love to be a investor of something as great as Yellowstone. Plus I trust him to protect it better anyways. Just my pennies on it though.

But then the problem becomes their children. What happens when Uncle Ted passes away and his kids take over and decide they can make a lot of money selling that land? What happens when a developer gets ahold of it and turns that land into a strip mall?

I'm not saying the Feds should keep it, but the States should. The state government is more of the People's government anyway, so why not? It's still owned by the People for the People.

 

[T-rav]

But then the problem becomes their children. What happens when Uncle Ted passes away and his kids take over and decide they can make a lot of money selling that land? What happens when a developer gets ahold of it and turns that land into a strip mall?

I'm not saying the Feds should keep it, but the States should. The state government is more of the People's government anyway, so why not? It's still owned by the People for the People.

I understand what you are saying, I get that BUT who says he would leave it to his kids? Lets say he knows what his kids would do and it would be willed to someone that would love the land just as much as he did if not more, Im sure he raised his kids well though.

All hypothetical of course

 

[SavageEagle]

I understand what you are saying, I get that BUT who says he would leave it to his kids? Lets say he knows what his kids would do and it would be willed to someone that would love the land just as much as he did if not more, Im sure he raised his kids well though.

All hypothetical of course

Yea, that's a possibility too. I just think with it being protected by the states, not the Feds, it wouldn't be in peril to such a chance.

 

[Joe Williams]

Yea, that's a possibility too. I just think with it being protected by the states, not the Feds, it wouldn't be in peril to such a chance.

There is a more compelling reason why states should be running parks. They can legally give themselves the authority to do so. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Federal government authority to do so. They've simply seized the power and the land, without regard to their lack of legal authority to do so.

 

[hornadylnl]

If uncle Ted leaves his land to his children and they decide to sell it to a developer, that is their choice. We have no right telling another landowner who they can or can't sell it to or what they want to do with it.

 

[SavageEagle]

If uncle Ted leaves his land to his children and they decide to sell it to a developer, that is their choice. We have no right telling another landowner who they can or can't sell it to or what they want to do with it.

So you have no problem if, say, Joe Blow sold the land that is Yellowstone National Forest to some developer and they torn it all out and made houses and strip malls on it? You would have no problem if people sold off Hoosier National Forest, or Lieber State Park and turned them into industrial parks? I find that hard to believe.

If people aren't going to protect our National and State Treasures, who will?

 

[Joe Williams]

So you have no problem if, say, Joe Blow sold the land that is Yellowstone National Forest to some developer and they torn it all out and made houses and strip malls on it? You would have no problem if people sold off Hoosier National Forest, or Lieber State Park and turned them into industrial parks? I find that hard to believe.

If people aren't going to protect our National and State Treasures, who will?

Ever hear of the Nature Conservancy? If you want to protect land, get a group of folks together, buy it, and use it for your intended purpose.

Ryan, how can you of all people advocate seizing the private property of American citizens and giving it to the "people" to protect? Didn't you get into a match with a socialist earlier today? What you advocate is, in fact, socialism, and when the federal government does it it's not backed by law. If Uncle Ted's kids want to sell of their property, they have, or are supposed to have, the right to do so. If you don't want it developed, get some investors together, and you buy it.

 

[hornadylnl]

Great post Joe!

If I want to clear cut my 17 acres of woods to put up a strip mall, that is my right. If the tree huggers don't want a strip mall there, they can outbid the developer and keep it in trees. Where do I or any other TaxPAYER owe you or anyone else a yellowstone or Hoosier national forest?

 

[SavageEagle]

Ever hear of the Nature Conservancy? If you want to protect land, get a group of folks together, buy it, and use it for your intended purpose.

Ryan, how can you of all people advocate seizing the private property of American citizens and giving it to the "people" to protect? Didn't you get into a match with a socialist earlier today? What you advocate is, in fact, socialism, and when the federal government does it it's not backed by law. If Uncle Ted's kids want to sell of their property, they have, or are supposed to have, the right to do so. If you don't want it developed, get some investors together, and you buy it.

I don't care what someone does with their private property. However, these state and national parks, do you REALLY want to see someone buy it, only to have their kids, or their grandkids destroy it? I'm not talking about giving it to the Federal Government. I'm talking state government. There's nothing in the Constitution about parks and the government running them, but the 10th amendment gives states that right. And personally, I have NO problem with my state tax dollars going to preserving our parks. Do you?

I don't like government intervention any more than you do, but I hate anarchy worse. Anarchy breeds tyrants and that makes small government a necessary evil. There are things that government is there to do, and park preservation is one of those things I have no problem with.

Now if they start TAKING land from people that's a different story. What you guys are failing to realize though is that almost all state and national parks are DONATED lands, from people, for the people. Look it up. Most every single park here in Indiana was either donated or sold to the government FOR preservation.

All I'm advocating here is that STATE government protect and run our parks instead of trusting it to individuals who may, or may not preserve the land.

 

[hornadylnl]

Yes, because government can be better trusted with land then private owners. Maybe I need uncle Mitch to monitor my 27 acres to make sure it is properly taken care of.

 

[BloodEclipse]

Yes, because government can be better trusted with land then private owners. Maybe I need uncle Mitch to monitor my 27 acres to make sure it is properly taken care of.

Maybe he could lease it to a Spanish/Australian consortium.

All joking aside I think the toll road was a smart move.

 

[SavageEagle]

Yes, because government can be better trusted with land then private owners. Maybe I need uncle Mitch to monitor my 27 acres to make sure it is properly taken care of.

Go re-read what I wrote. I don't give a fly what you do with your land. blow it up with 100lbs of TNT and turn it into a crater for all I care. But I don't trust YOU to upkeep the PARKS in this Country. The first time you go broke, you'll sell that land to the highest bidder. You lose your job, bank threatens to repo your house, bye-bye park. And what happens when that next person decides to destroy the park? Oh, it's not your fault?

You put a lot of faith in people that you don't know.

 

[hornadylnl]

Go re-read what I wrote. I don't give a fly what you do with your land. blow it up with 100lbs of TNT and turn it into a crater for all I care. But I don't trust YOU to upkeep the PARKS in this Country. The first time you go broke, you'll sell that land to the highest bidder. You lose your job, bank threatens to repo your house, bye-bye park. And what happens when that next person decides to destroy the park? Oh, it's not your fault?

You put a lot of faith in people that you don't know.

Apparantly you put a lot of faith in government. I put my faith in those acting in their own best interest. Why are state owned trees worthy of protection but not mine?

My land is an investment. I don't misuse or abuse it for the same reason you don't take a 10# sledgehammer to every window and body panel on your car. I paid good money to a forester to come survey my woods and mark it for a timber sale. I didn't sell 130 trees for a quick buck. I did so because the bulk of them were dying and to make room for new growth. I will pay the forester big bucks next year to do timber stand improvement, ie kill vines, nuicance trees and plant good trees. I do this for the same reason you change the oil and do other routine maintenance on your car. To protect your investment. The fact that I want to leave a good healthy woods with stand of timber to my daughter for her future is why I do it. Not so you or some greenie can enjoy nature on taxpayer dime. That's right. My own selfish greed drives me to improve my land, not destroy it. Why would any invester in park and destroy his investment?

If you are going to rail on socialism, you need to rail against all of it, not just the socialism that doesn't benefit you.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

Read Article1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

"To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;

Our National Park System is blatantly unconstitutional and always has been.

 

[SavageEagle]

Apparantly you put a lot of faith in government. I put my faith in those acting in their own best interest. Why are state owned trees worthy of protection but not mine?

My land is an investment. I don't misuse or abuse it for the same reason you don't take a 10# sledgehammer to every window and body panel on your car. I paid good money to a forester to come survey my woods and mark it for a timber sale. I didn't sell 130 trees for a quick buck. I did so because the bulk of them were dying and to make room for new growth. I will pay the forester big bucks next year to do timber stand improvement, ie kill vines, nuicance trees and plant good trees. I do this for the same reason you change the oil and do other routine maintenance on your car. To protect your investment. The fact that I want to leave a good healthy woods with stand of timber to my daughter for her future is why I do it. Not so you or some greenie can enjoy nature on taxpayer dime. That's right. My own selfish greed drives me to improve my land, not destroy it. Why would any invester in park and destroy his investment?

If you are going to rail on socialism, you need to rail against all of it, not just the socialism that doesn't benefit you.

You just don't get it. Not everyone who owns land is so smart about their land. Some people would be more than happy to sell it and part it out the moment they fall on hard times. If the STATE has control of the parks, it's owned by EVERYONE to be enjoyed by EVERYONE. That might sound like socialism, but it's not. It's the state protecting protected land. I have no say in what you do with your own land. If you want to destroy it, I have to watch it happen. However, with the state run parks, I don't have to worry about you or anyone else selling the land and watch it be destroyed.

It's not socialism. It's protectionism. When it comes to the last wilderness this Country has, you bet your butt I'll fight for that. Anyone who would rather see our park system sold out to private people must not like to go to those parks and enjoy them.

 

[6birds]

Hypocrisy is the act of persistently pretending to hold beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually hold. Hypocrisy is thus a kind of lie.

This has come up before, SE is for the programs HE wants, regardless of cost, or socialist agenda. Here is one from 4 months ago, LNL, you may remember trying to educate him then.
https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo..._to_offset_revenue_shortfalls.html#post703190

12-4-09 Governor takes more action to offset revenue shortfalls
SE-"He lost my vote when he shut down the Indiana Soldier's and Sailor's Home in Knightstown, "

The three-year assessment, which incorporated evaluations by the Department of Education, the Family and Social Services Administration, the Indiana Office of Management and Budget, and architectural contractors, found the Home:

• Lacks a clear mission and admission policies;
• Fails to follow the preferred model and trend of supplying education and support to students in local communities, with the help of families, non-profit organizations, and local resources;
• Is inefficient in both its teacher to student ratio (1:5) and in the cost of educating students ($91,205 per student, per year); and
• Has many physical facilities that are outdated and would cost between $65 million to $200 million to modernize.

SE-"I don't really care, you can run the numbers all day long."

Ryan, does it ever hurt sitting on the fence?

 

[E5RANGER375]

There is a more compelling reason why states should be running parks. They can legally give themselves the authority to do so. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the Federal government authority to do so. They've simply seized the power and the land, without regard to their lack of legal authority to do so.

you Sir are EXACTLY RIGHT!!!

the only reason states have allowed the feds to run parks is to pass paying for them off onto someone else besides the state. time to start paying your own bills states!! The constitution makes the federal government IMPOTENT!!! for a reason, the reason is so they wouldnt become a BIG GIANT BULLY like they are today. time to take the power and put it where it belongs. STATES RIGHTS!

 

[jeremy]

Go re-read what I wrote. I don't give a fly what you do with your land. blow it up with 100lbs of TNT and turn it into a crater for all I care. But I don't trust YOU to upkeep the PARKS in this Country. The first time you go broke, you'll sell that land to the highest bidder. You lose your job, bank threatens to repo your house, bye-bye park. And what happens when that next person decides to destroy the park? Oh, it's not your fault?

You put a lot of faith in people that you don't know.

SE I have 2 points to make right here...

1. How much do you know about Wild-land Management?! The amazing then is you probably no far more than the bureaucrats that are making the decisions about how to preserve the Wild-lands...

2. Name one program that the Feds have managed successfully?!

 

[6birds]

2. Name one program that the Feds have managed successfully?!

Life time insurance for themselves....