New public lands sell-off proposed by GOP

Scarecly a few weeks after a national furor resulted in the abandonment of a plan by Republican Reps. Richard Pombo of California and Jim Gibbons of Nevada to sell off public lands to private interests, now the Head GOP Honcho himself wants to do the same thing.

The Bush administration on Friday detailed its proposal to sell more than 300,000 acres of national forests and other public land to help pay for rural schools in 41 states.

The land sales, ranging from less than an acre to more than 1,000 acres, could total more than $1 billion and would be the largest sale of forest land in decades.

The rationale is not worth mentioning, as it is so transparently false. The real desire is simply to start the process transferring the public's assets into the hands of friends of the GOP leadership. Pombo and Gibbons failed, so now Bush has to step in to get the ball rolling again.

"These are not the crown jewels we are talking about," [former timber industry lobbyist and current Agriculture Undersecretary Mark] Rey said in an interview.

They figure as long as they don't sell the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, and Yosemite that the public won't care. Fortunately, the reaction to the Pombo-Gibbons plan at the end of last year suggests they are wrong.

BLM spokeswoman Celia Boddington said much of the land would be near urban areas with high market value. In recent years, the government has sold parcels for tens of millions of dollars in Nevada, for example, she said.

"Lands formerly remote are now abutting metro areas. That is certainly the case in New Mexico, Arizona and Utah," she said.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., said that is precisely the reason the land should not be sold.

"Our hunters, anglers, campers and other recreational users benefit from -- and depend on -- access to public lands," Bingaman said. "In my view, selling public lands to pay down the deficit would be a shortsighted, ill-advised and irresponsible shift in federal land-management policy."

Bingaman's words are too understated. Open land near population centers is exceptionally valuable the way it is, and will only get more so in the future. Selling it off now will only benefit the real estate developers who purchase it (as well as the politicos they kick back some of the profits too), and will further impoverish the citizens of this country in future years.

Senator Bingaman had other wise words, though: "Our public lands are a legacy for future generations. We shouldn't liquidate that legacy."

GOP Senator Larry Craig of Idaho joined in, saying "Public lands are an asset that need to be managed and conserved," while Democratic Rep. Mark Udall of Colorado came up with an apt analogy, "It's like selling your homestead to pay your credit cards."

Senator Dianne Feinstein is also on the right track, saying "California's remaining wildlands are diminishing at a rapid rate, and we need, at the very least, to keep what we have, not to sell them off to the highest bidder," and adding "I will do everything I can to defeat this effort."

Let's make sure she has some help.