While I like Mike; I think he punted here.It would have been nice if Lake
Tahoe were still surrounded by "public lands" and not private enclaves
for the wealthy and somehow i don think releasing BLM land in west Box Elder or
Millard counties is going to affect housing prices on the Wasatch front.Although environmental extremists don't seem to offer a viable
alternative. They seem to want to "lock up" land for private
wealthy/healthy individuals (but get the taxpayer to pay for it) all the
time.Support for the Bishop land compromise would have solved a lot
of problems and current opposition to an Escalante national park or other
options that are more welcoming than wilderness/monuments, continue to be
'Playgrounds for the faraway elites'? Seriously? Other than the
National Parks, Lake Powell, etc. Utahans are the ones that use Utah's
public lands more than anyone else for hiking, fishing , camping, biking, not
'faraway elites'. His comment to use Utah's public lands for
affordable housing is laughable. Who does he think he's kidding? He
doesn't care about affordable housing. This will be another bait and
switch to grab the land and sell it to developers. No one is fooled.
Mikey -- Let the federal-owned lands remain pristine and untouched. Don't
try to despoil and over-use them. Be a good steward of the lands, don't
try to over-use them. Enough is enough.
The analogy to land being the playground of the wealthy totally makes sense to
all who have followwed events in Moab. These regulations limit access to
building supplies and space in ways that drive up housing prices. Although the
true key to ending unaforadability is for Utahns to embrace more high rise
40 acres and a mule? In 2018?I can see it now. They will demand
sewer and water and roads and a library and schools and a hospital and
bandwidth...all before the new owners would turn a shovel.You could
maybe play that non-profit angle, but that is messy. What if the Branch
Davidians or the Big Loves want 30 parcels? Of course, they'd go right to
work with improvements of their own, but Uncle Sam wouldn't like it. (Read
your history books from about 1830 to the present.That leaves
developers. And that one's even more frightening.The left does
not seem to be predisposed to communes these days; not without subsidies.So, here we are Senator Lee. Time to talk turkey. Who is going to do it?
Making this rose blossom takes a lot of work.
Just another local Mormon Republican trying to "take back" lands that
the state never owned. This is not even a poorly veiled attempt. Why is Lee
presenting it to the ultra-right-wing-Mormon-Republican Sutherland Institute
instead of Congress? No "affordable housing" on public
lands. If that happened our developer home builder legislators would lay claim
to that land because they would then own it, not the Feds.Fight
against this attempt to privatize Federal lands.
Affordable housing is a must in all areas. Some large cities built projects to
achieve this goal and many were failures. Before building housing, politicians
should consider the problems encountered by Cabrini Green in Chicago and other
projects that have been demolished. It would be more effective to intersperse
affordable housing into existing communities and schools. Segregating affordable
housing into isolated social units will only exacerbate existing problems. The
difficulty is that some communities will not allow "those people" to
move in, i.e. proposed Cottonwood Mall and Harriman developments.
The public lands are what make Utah so great. To sell them off is foolish.
I'm not sure I understand his proposal. The only places you can put homes
are places with water. Most BLM land in Utah are desert. Does he want to sell
off the national forests? The beauty of living in this state is having outdoor
playgrounds more or less to yourself. Sure, there's lots of federal land,
but it's usually far from urban centers. Does he just want more sprawl?
Build more highways all over God's creation?