|
|
|
|
chalker7
Mar 5, 2006, 7:08 AM
Post #51 of 72
(8644 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 317
|
Wow that is ridiculous. I mean, I know theres something wrong with the idea when it makes me sick even though my own state is losing nothing to the deal. I used to be a go gettem' GW kinda republican but slowly I have been losing my ability to justify supporting the administration, and recently my doubts have been speeding up and this just threw me off the edge into hatred. The only hope there is, if this bullshit can't be stopped, is that the "better" schools (because we all know that throwing money at it will fix the problem) will produce more educated people who won't vote anyone like Bush into office again. That's the only positive I can foresee.
Oh and by the way, since I am not entirely politically brilliant by any means, could someone tell me if my rep here in PA will laugh his face off when I voice an opinion against something that has no direct repercussions on my state? Do politicians actually care about anything other than the state they represent? I really don't actually know so I'm not being a smartass, and staying ignorant doesnt really help.
After seeing this I wish I were old enough to vote when Bush were up for office the first time around. Feckin Nazi.
|
|
|
|
|
scottb63
Mar 5, 2006, 7:51 AM
Post #52 of 72
(8644 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 30, 2005
Posts: 52
|
A friend of mine works for a lumber company and he told me the reason why these lands are being sold. It turns out that lumber companies can't keep up with the demand for plywood because of the increased amount of home climbing walls being built. So, you can all blame W, but he is not the one turning our precious trees into basement boulder problems.
|
|
|
|
|
jon06
Mar 5, 2006, 12:13 PM
Post #53 of 72
(8644 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 28, 2004
Posts: 99
|
Lets all start a revolution!!!
I have a gun and some slung hexes.
Who's in with me?
|
|
|
|
|
mccarthykm
Mar 5, 2006, 4:37 PM
Post #55 of 72
(8644 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 17, 2004
Posts: 194
|
I really hope that this doesn't go through. It will set a precident for selling whenever the government needs money, being a virtual "savings account."
As strongnly as I feel against it, if it does go through, I think that the states should be offered first crack at the land and offered a long term payment plan. That way the land still belongs to the people and housing developments won't replace our resources.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
docontherock
Mar 5, 2006, 4:42 PM
Post #57 of 72
(8644 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2004
Posts: 109
|
Any comments on the actual land for sale and it's quality, location, proximity to the "choice" lands that we actually climb/camp/hike in? I just spent about an hour using the the online GIS to look at the Cali land in question and have an opinion but would like to hear from others who have actually looked at this critically. For the record, before you just start Bush Bashing, that's not the question I am asking here. Please try to comment only on the quality and location of the land and how its sale would actually affect recreational lands.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Mar 5, 2006, 4:48 PM
Post #58 of 72
(8644 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: Please try to comment only on the quality and location of the land and how its sale would actually affect recreational lands.
Recreation isn't the only viable purpose of public land trusts. Preservation is a huge component too. I saw on the map a disturbing trend to sell off 'useless' parcels of land that are convenient for logging.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
docontherock
Mar 5, 2006, 4:56 PM
Post #59 of 72
(8644 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2004
Posts: 109
|
Cleary recreation isn't the only use, but since this is RC.com I figured I'd specifically ask about that facet of the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Mar 5, 2006, 8:19 PM
Post #60 of 72
(8644 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
In reply to: I wonder how much of this was the PRIVATELY OWNED LAND that was taken by the Feds under the Clinton Administration, in the name of "preservation"..? :idea:
You're referring to this? Or something similar? (eg. "how dare our 33% income taxes pay for the federal government to own 33% of the landmass! It's a travesty!") The best material I could find was the usual Libertarian wingnut diatribes. (They're almost as frothing as my earlier rhetoric -- scary stuff, huh ;-))
The fact of the matter is that Clinton and Gore established funding to acquire property that was devalued by zoning, from "willing" sellers. You can argue until you're blue in the face as to WHY the sellers became "willing" (quick answer: zoning reduced the value of their lands to below collateral value), but these were NOT the eminent-domain takings that you intimate.
In reply to: Furthermore, would you still complain if it were being sold or given back to the Indian tribes from which it was initially stolen from..?
Probably not as bitterly, but considering that $0.01/acre is apparently a ruinous sum to extract from the lumber (clearcutting) concerns, I have my doubts. Especially since they were, by and large, NOT among the original (smaller capitalization) sellers of the land, unless you know something I don't. (quite possible -- I know very little, but I usually can figure out where I put it...)
|
|
|
|
|
tim
Mar 5, 2006, 8:23 PM
Post #61 of 72
(8644 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 4, 2002
Posts: 4861
|
Is there anyone on here who works for the Forest Service or similar, who can assist in interpreting which parcels are slated to be sold? I am mostly worried about my favorite crags in the Southern Sierra (Sierra/Sequoia) and Inyo NF. Yes I'm selfish, why the hell else would I pony up to buy them!
I tried to use the GeoCommunicator site that was suggested but it crashed my browser after bringing my machine to a crawl. Someone with ArcGIS, GRASS, or similar could make quick work of the evaluation, though.
Maybe I should load up GRASS on this machine and try loading the shapefiles.
|
|
|
|
|
lewisiarediviva
Mar 6, 2006, 4:10 PM
Post #62 of 72
(8644 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2004
Posts: 527
|
In reply to: The only hope there is, if this s--- can't be stopped, is that the "better" schools (because we all know that throwing money at it will fix the problem) will produce more educated people who won't vote anyone like Bush into office again. That's the only positive I can foresee.
Though I laughed at your comment of throwing money at the school's my experience tells me you may be wrong about the issue on raising voters.
Currently in our school district their is a reading program that teachers are not allowed to speak against because doing so will "hamper the attitude of the teacher thus making the curriculum less effective." (Not a direct quote.)
I am sure biases have always arised in elementary education but usually kids begin to think for themselves by the time they reach highschool. Then they leave their families and communities and go to college- find a unified voice and speak out. . . I haven't seen a loud enough voice to draw the attention of our current administration. It's been effectively dulled I'm afraid, by the patriot act.
|
|
|
|
|
kyote321
Mar 6, 2006, 5:50 PM
Post #63 of 72
(8644 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 24, 2005
Posts: 636
|
chalker7 wrote:
T'he only hope there is, if this s--- can't be stopped, is that the "better" schools (because we all know that throwing money at it will fix the problem) will produce more educated people who won't vote anyone like Bush into office again. That's the only positive I can foresee. '
the education system is designed to keep a certain portion of the population uneducated, therefore poor, therefore working at walmart, in jail, killing each other.
the system depends on keepin people stupid.
i've been in education for 10 years. now i work at a charter school it is the only hope for educatin that i c.
|
|
|
|
|
lewisiarediviva
Mar 6, 2006, 6:46 PM
Post #64 of 72
(8644 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2004
Posts: 527
|
I thought:
1) In high school government I was taught that the school was to be under local control (then city, county, state, etc...). The Positive was that parents had more control, the Negative was that poor communities had poor schools.
2) The Federal government decided to enforce standards to compensate education problems primarily in the poor communities.
3) The federal government started the "you do, we give, you don't, we keep" policy. Communities started relying on the Federal, even richer ones.
4) After a while parents looked for a new solution because they realized how out of control education was getting. They started Charter Schools (which usually work really well until the parents get worn out).
5) The Federal government now realizes that they have made themselves responsible. We also have this huge population of senior citizens that don't want to pay extra taxes for someone that won't benefit them.
6) The Federal government thinks they have to a right to fix the problem by selling off our land, when really- our schools are our problem.
I think our issues with crime have more to do with out of control family environments (no Dad's), out of control local environments (ie. Teachers who get punished for flunking kids that are really not ready to go on), and the self esteem movement (telling kids that "it's ok" rather then teaching them to learn from the lesson and to take responsibility.)
Selling Public Lands to cover up problems in education is not the answer. I see it as saying that we don't really need to take responsibility.
It's like charging your credit card so you won't feel it on your debit card.
|
|
|
|
|
csgambill
Mar 6, 2006, 8:02 PM
Post #65 of 72
(8644 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 3, 2004
Posts: 607
|
Wooo Hoo! Go Bush! Get that land out of the government's hands and into the private sector where it belongs!!! The government has no right to own property! I think it's time to log those forests.
|
|
|
|
|
docontherock
Mar 7, 2006, 3:08 AM
Post #66 of 72
(8644 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2004
Posts: 109
|
In reply to: the education system is designed to keep a certain portion of the population uneducated, therefore poor, therefore working at walmart, in jail, killing each other. the system depends on keepin people stupid. i've been in education for 10 years. now i work at a charter school it is the only hope for educatin that i c.
The man speaks the truth!!! The teachers unions HATE charters because they expect the teachers to work hard and TEACH kids in order to keep their jobs. Consequently, charters perform far better than their non-charter public counterparts!! Just like all the other unions hate anyone who does their job better with less.
|
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Mar 7, 2006, 4:03 PM
Post #67 of 72
(8644 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
A direct reply from SD's Rep in Congress.
In reply to: Thank you for contacting with regard to the Bush administration's recent plan to sell public land in South Dakota and elsewhere to help pay for rural schools. I appreciate hearing from you, and I share your concerns. About 300,000 acres of national forest and other public lands would be sold. Included is 14,000 acres in the Black Hills National Forest, the Buffalo Gap National Grasslands, and the Fort Pierre National Grasslands. The Administration proposal is bad policy that does not address the long-term and structural problems facing localities with large tracts of public lands. Further, the $800 million dollars expected over five years of land sales is less than the currently authorized amount. The President's proposal would actually cut assistance to rural schools. A more balanced approach would have followed H.R. 517, the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Reauthorization Act of 2005, of which I am cosponsor. It recognizes the long term impacts of federal forest lands on rural areas and provides a sensible solution, without the sale of public land. I support this important legislation to ensure that impacted counties and schools can continue to serve their communities. Thanks again for taking the time to contact me. Please stay in touch. |
|
|
|
|
moose_droppings
Mar 7, 2006, 4:06 PM
Post #68 of 72
(8644 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Posts: 3371
|
sorry, double post
|
|
|
|
|
braaaaaaaadley
Mar 8, 2006, 2:47 AM
Post #69 of 72
(8644 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 9, 2002
Posts: 576
|
I did not see this posted above, but if you want to let some folks who matter know your thoughts on this issue here are some ways to contact them:
Here is information on the proposed sales of National Forest lands in the United States.
(the comment deadline is March 30).
Here is the brief version of the comment-relevant text (copied from the Federal Register):
ADDRESSES: You may submit your comments by e-mail to:
SRS_Land_Sales@fs.fed.us
by facsimile (fax) to:
(202) 205–1604
or by mail to:
USDA Forest Service, SRS Comments, Lands 4S
1400 Independence Ave., SW.
Mailstop 1124
Washington, DC 20250– 0003.
Electronic submission is preferred.
If you submit your comments by e-mail or fax, you do not need to send a paper copy by mail. Your comments may address the entire list of parcels identified in the President’s proposal, or an individual parcel or parcels on that list. If you are commenting about a specific parcel on the list, it would be helpful to provide the parcel’s number from the list and all information specifically related to the sale of that parcel.
DATES: You should submit your comments by March 30, 2006 to be assured of consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered only to the extent practicable.
|
|
|
|
|
dklco
Mar 11, 2006, 2:33 PM
Post #70 of 72
(8644 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 5, 2005
Posts: 112
|
In reply to: Wooo Hoo! Go Bush! Get that land out of the government's hands and into the private sector where it belongs!!! The government has no right to own property! I think it's time to log those forests.
I hope your joking....
|
|
|
|
|
mtoensing2002
Mar 11, 2006, 3:23 PM
Post #71 of 72
(8644 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2006
Posts: 23
|
This blows. I hate Bush so much. He can;t take our land away, that bastard. It sucks because I'm 17 and can't do much about it but want to do more. Republicans suck harcore. God dammit this pissses me off. Reading made me want to punch something. AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.
Go democrats!!!
Howard Dean 2008
|
|
|
|
|
seanhabgood
Mar 11, 2006, 6:51 PM
Post #72 of 72
(8644 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 12, 2006
Posts: 82
|
The real winer of the sale is the devlopers! The big loser is us the tax payer. Bush and his fuzzy math skills have yet to fund his current education plan every child left behind. The US government funds a very small fraction of education in the US. The new plan would sell forest land for devlopment ie houses that will be in the forest that will need strip malls while displaceing local people through higher taxes. The devloper will then pack up with a great profit as they bought the land for pennys on the dollar and sold it for a huge profit. Then with the the new devlopment the need for fire protection will become self evident when the houses and buniness are burined out due to wild fires that are part of the natural cycle. Then more tax dollars will be spent for fire protection that still will not be able to stop fires in very dry seasons. The lost houses and buinesses will then be paid for by the US goverment or OUR tax dollars. The rual schools if they see the funds like every child left behind will get a short burst of money then they will be where they were before. We the people will have lost the forest land for good! As the head of one of our National Parks said to me if the Parks Service could get the funding for one B2 bomber they would double there total budget for the year, this was before the new round of funding cuts. It also leaves to the imagination what could have happened if the money spent to chase the ghost of WMD in Iraq was put to good use what could have been done. Sean
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
