Some details on the Bush public land sale emerge

Few specific details are yet available about exactly where the hundreds of thousands of acres of public lands that Bush wants to sell off are located. But in South Carolina, some of it consists of forest land near one of that state's "most visible and popular natural areas", according to The State—land that, if sold, would quickly be developed:

Tourists often drive north on S.C. 107 through the heart of the Sumter National Forest to view the fall colors, visit Oconee State Park or raft on the Chattooga River. The scenery and the accessibility of the land would make the 470 acres of Forest Service land easy to market, real estate agents said Tuesday.

“It would sell overnight,” said Walhalla real estate agent John Powell, who opposes the sale. But “people are not going to drive here to see condominiums or houses or subdivisions.”

Many who live in that area are not pleased about the possibility of their scenic mountains turning into standard-issue exurbia:

Gwen Fowler, a real estate agent whose family has lived in Oconee County for generations, said national forest land boosts the value of that private property.

“This is like selling an heirloom your grandmother gave to you. I’ve had calls from people all day upset about this.”

Once further details of this fire sale of public lands become available, I'm afraid that there will be many similar stories coming out.

Comments

[Mark Harden]

It’s part of next year’s federal budget proposal to sell about 300,000 acres nationwide. Proceeds would go to rural schools across the country.

But it's "For The Children(TM)"! Kids over trees, Peter ;-)

It's a budget issue. The Congressional representatives of the people will vote to determine whether this public land - owned by the sovereign people of the United States, including you and me - should be sold to support the schools.

Democracy in action, not some sort of immoral land scheme as you imply.

[Peter]

Certainly you understand that the budget process that our government follows is far from a good example of "democracy in action."

Nonetheless, if enough people are made aware of this, I am confident that Congress will feel enough pressure to make sure this scheme is killed.

[Mark Harden]

Nonetheless, if enough people are made aware of this, I am confident that Congress will feel enough pressure to make sure this scheme is killed.

If so, then that was the proper result. If not, also.

As for our Congressional budget process, it is much closer to democracy in action than is decision-making based on public outcry.

So, you don't support using the funds accrued from the land sales for rural schools?

[Peter]

So government by backroom wheeling and dealing is "much closer to democracy in action" than government by an informed public? Even if you prefer the former for some reason, it certainly can't be called democracy in action.

As to your last question, read this earlier post.

[Mark Harden]

it certainly can't be called democracy in action

It's called representative democracy. That's what we all enlisted for, like it or not. If you don't like the results achieved through it, it's your right to work to change the representatives.

From your earlier post: The six-year-old "county payments" law has helped offset sharp declines in timber sales in western states in the wake of federal forest policy that restricts logging to protect endangered species such as the spotted owl.

So, if not for abuse of the Endangered Species Act, we could have retained the public lands by permitting less restricted logging (i.e., harvesting of trees for the public benefit). But in order to protect the spotted owl, we now have to sell the public land to raise funding for the rural schools.

The public forest belongs to everyone, not just tree huggers and spotted owls.

[Peter]

Your argument would be better if it were more coherent. You defend the budget process as representative democracy, but then assail the Endangered Species Act and the resulting northwest logging plan, a compromise implementation of the Act arrived at after years of negotiations between conservationists and logging interests.

By the way, seems a GOP Senator from Montana, Conrad Burns, is so displeased with Bush's idea to sell public lands, that he plans to single-handedly kill the plan. While I obviously would support this outcome, and am confident the result would be the same in the end if Burns changes his mind, the process illustrates why much of what happens in our Congress is not well described by the word 'democracy.'