 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Economy Forum » Federal mineral land rent theft impending |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| sinister |
 Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 10:11 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
From "Bill Would Sell Land Promised to D.C.," _Washington Post_, 2005-11-10,
URL
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/09/AR2005110902048.html
"Tucked inside a huge budget bill headed for an upcoming House vote is a
provision that could spur the federal government to sell off millions of
acres of public land to mining interests, marking a major shift in the
nation's mining policy."
[snip]
"Congress has barred the government from selling land outright to mining
companies since 1994, on the grounds that they should lease public land the
same way oil and gas firms do to extract the minerals below. But House
Resources Committee Chairman Richard W. Pombo (R-Calif.) said the measure
would cut the deficit and promote private ownership. 'In some states
primarily owned by the federal government, it's important that more of that
land become private property,' Pombo said. 'These environmental groups want
the federal government to own everything.'
"Rep. Nick J. Rahall II (W.Va.), ranking Democrats on Pombo's committee,
criticized the measure in an interview yesterday. He said that it 'would
result in a blazing fire sale of federal land to domestic and corporate
interests.'
"Rahall said the government would collect hundreds of millions of dollars
more if it charged an 8 percent royalty on the extracted minerals. "We're
setting up Uncle Sam to be Uncle Sucker," he said.
"The two sides offered sharply different estimates of how much land might be
sold under the bill. The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that no
more than 360,000 acres would immediately come on the market, but
environmentalists said 5.7 million acres could end up on the auction block.
The bill would set the sale price at as much as $1,000 an acre or 'fair
market value,' whichever is highest -- ***but based only on the land's
surface value, not its potential mineral wealth.*** [Emphasis added---S]
" 'It could be the largest privatization of federal land in the last 100
years,' said John D. Leshy, a professor at the University of California
Hastings College of the Law who served as the Interior Department's
solicitor under President Bill Clinton.
"Pombo spokesman Brian Kennedy called those estimates 'patently absurd.'
"The legislation, which would amend the 1872 Mining Law, would allow
companies to buy land they are mining and adjacent parcels for 'sustainable
economic development.' Critics said this language, which does not require
buyers to prove there are minerals beneath, could lure companies searching
for real estate investments." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| ruetheday@outgun.com |
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 3:45 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
[quote:16b0a1aaf6]But House
Resources Committee Chairman Richard W. Pombo (R-Calif.) said the measure
would cut the deficit
[/quote:16b0a1aaf6]
Leasing the land out and charging a severance tax on extracted minerals
would cut the deficit too, and not just during the current fiscal year
like an outright sale would.
[quote:16b0a1aaf6]and promote private ownership.
[/quote:16b0a1aaf6]
Why is that necessarily a positive thing?
[quote:16b0a1aaf6]'In some states
primarily owned by the federal government, it's important that more of that
land become private property,' Pombo said
[/quote:16b0a1aaf6]
Why is it important? I really wish people would at least attempt to
back up statements like that rather than just assert them as undeniable
truth. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| sinister |
| Posted: Thu Nov 10, 2005 5:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<ruetheday@outgun.com> wrote in message
news:1131655524.666525.188230@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
[quote:3301649ebe]But House
Resources Committee Chairman Richard W. Pombo (R-Calif.) said the measure
would cut the deficit
Leasing the land out and charging a severance tax on extracted minerals
would cut the deficit too, and not just during the current fiscal year
like an outright sale would.
and promote private ownership.
Why is that necessarily a positive thing?
'In some states
primarily owned by the federal government, it's important that more of
that
land become private property,' Pombo said
Why is it important? I really wish people would at least attempt to
back up statements like that rather than just assert them as undeniable
truth.
[/quote:3301649ebe]
You're speaking as if Pombo wasn't a right-wing nutjob, who in this instance
is doing his utmost to give public treasure away to private interests. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:12 pm
|
|