Steve, you havnt explained why you champion sprawl over multistory building other than, the land is there use it?
Environmentally, sprawl goes against every thing people should be doing. It's less efficient. It could be done on 1/4 to 1/3 of the land.
That would be far less reflective surfaces that contribute to higher air temps.
Sprawl creates huge amounts of impermeable surfaces. I, with some others spent years in our capitol getting an impermeable surface act passed. The data applies differently, but still amounts to the same east or west.
All that sprawl restricts groundwater and problems associated with it.
All the runoff from hard surfaces is increased water temps, passed on to where ever it is channeled to flow, along with the concentrated contaminations it carries from those surfaces.
Native fish do not like increased water temps, algae and water weed does.
When you talk afforable housing, it should be closest to services. Sprawl means more traffic from further distances and all that goes with increased vehicles.
I could go on and on.
It is a good thing you make a living in a shop. If you tried making a living from the land, you would be a total disaster.

My goodness to you ever make some assumptions. Champion sprawl? Are you serious? I said that growth in cities is my preference. That is championing sprawl? Sure build up, I have no problem with that. When doing so, do it close to public transportation.

None of that means that divesting of Federal property in urban areas is a bad idea, or condones sprawl.

Does anyone think that private land should be condemed by eminant domain so that it could be used for housing?

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:
Does anyone think that private land should be condemed by eminant domain so that it could be used for housing?

Yes, in some cases. Look at inner cities where sometimes privately owned properties go into severe decay. It seems to happen a lot. Owner no longer takes care of the property. I won't get into arguments as to why properties end up in such decay but this does happen. Why not use them for building housing? I think a bigger problem is cost of construction and then being able to price such as reasonably priced rentals.

Happens all the time. Really not by Eminent Domain, but most localities have condemnation ordinances for just that.

In out town, that was done with help from federal funding to build single family low income homes. They tore down the old apartments. Now, this was very small scale.

There is plenty in urban areas that can be redone, made better and maintain public lands. No one wants the public commitment. It is much easier to take the Steve B mindset if. A) Ket us not maintain our public spaces, and B) Instead of investing in out urban areas just sell that public land off for “development.”

Read my lips, “ No selling public lands.” That is the lazy and government cheap partial solution to Steve b’s problem. It does not fix those urban areas in decay.

Much better idea.

Here is the little problem with "no selling public land" mantra...

Private land can be taken by eminent domain. In fact it often is, and for very dubious reasons on occasion.

If the public is taking land continually, and we never relinquish public hold of it, eventually all land will be public.

As far as I am concerned, while some land needs to be public, if it is not needed for the common use, it should be returned to the people it was taken from via eminent domain, or if they or their relatives are not able to be found, sold at public auction.

Improving the tax value of the land or "economic improvement" is not a reason to utilize eminent domain.

If a place is being used as a public park, great. That is public use. Building a public hospital or a police station? Sure. Schools? OK. Defense facilities? Yes.

Private housing? No.

Hotels or casinos? Hell no.

The government should not be holding land for no real public purpose. This country was built on private property and private property rights.

The government should not be a landlord.

Yawn.

Go cry to someone else. I do not care private land can be taken be taken Eminent Domain
Oh, and the S. Ct., has said it is fine to use Eminent Domain as you describe.

So what. Read my lips, “ Not one grain of soil.”

That’s is no metal concept of reverse Eminent Domain as you describe.

Most states have statutes that allow certain public land use like roads to lapse back to seed land owner when the state fails for a statutory period of time to provide maintenance. That is not reverse Eminent Domain and are limited by statute to specific uses and requirements.

Heym and I both brought up building upwards, Steve.
You only brought up "complex issues" and Japan and S Korea. You did not show any approval.
You then went right back to selling fed land and building there, without telling us why we shouldnt be using less land for the same units.
That is why you sounded like sprawl was your choice.
I'm glad to see you admit there are other ways.

When do you move to one these multi-family units Tony? My guess is right after I do.....never.

All good points about housing density, sprawl and land use. None of them make selling off Federal land in urban environments a bad idea.

Back to Sparks, 210 single family dwellings on 20 acres. Sure, they could build denser by building up, of course both you and I would never consider living in a place that was that densely populated. It is a bit ironic if you stop to think about Tony.

You never did answer my question, where is it that you consider a good place for growth? My guess is that you and I agree on this point, better in the cities than seeing wide open spaces developed.

I am fine with people living in cities if that is what they want. I have given up many things to have the 1300 acres of privacy I have. Everyone gets to make their own choice.
That there is more federal land down the road doesnt mean filling it all is the best option.
Look at all options instead of adding to the sprawl. How many hundreds of acres are you protecting Steve?

I own one acre Tony, inside the forest boundary. Do you approve? Have some lifestyle advice for me?

Why on earth you continue on with your incorrect assumption that I champion sprawl is beyond me. The point I am trying to make is that broad brush solutions are not the best way to govern, or manage land for that matter. I believe that the vast, vast majority of Federal land should be retained for future generations. I also believe that exceptions exist.

Dem senators block amendment doubling rural medical funding AND raising taxes on those making over $25m income

You just can't make this up. I wonder what the venn diagram looks like for those that voted against this and voted for an amendment to Obamacare that would have blocked ED meds for sex offenders

Trump administration pushes back on NJ town moving to seize 175-year-old family farm via eminent domain

Sad to see sprawl working to take over.

I dont believe in telling people where they can or cannot live. I cannot tell people they should live in a city.
Every time there is an exception to selling fed land, it opens the door for more selling.

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
Trump administration pushes back on NJ town moving to seize 175-year-old family farm via eminent domain

Sad to see sprawl working to take over.

That is the situation I was referring to earlier with my comment about eminent domain seizure.

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
Trump administration pushes back on NJ town moving to seize 175-year-old family farm via eminent domain

Sad to see sprawl working to take over.

That is the situation I was referring to earlier with my comment about eminent domain seizure.

I reckon this happens a lot and think it is awful. Land gets surrounded by development and becomes extremely valuable plus the residents don't like farm odors and noise. City changes ordinances in order to seize to in the end, increase their tax revenue. It's always about money.

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by Aspen Hill Adventures:
Trump administration pushes back on NJ town moving to seize 175-year-old family farm via eminent domain

Sad to see sprawl working to take over.

That is the situation I was referring to earlier with my comment about eminent domain seizure.

I reckon this happens a lot and think it is awful. Land gets surrounded by development and becomes extremely valuable plus the residents don't like farm odors and noise. City changes ordinances in order to seize to in the end, increase their tax revenue. It's always about money.

In recent years something like that happened once if not twice around here, but IIRC the property owners relented and took the money before it was "condemned" and they would have gotten a smaller payback.

"""They have poured $200,000 into the property and declined offers of up to $30 million made by developers in that time, NJ.com reported."""

I bet if they tried to resurrect that deal today that it would get blocked.

Well, I don’t disagree that it is legal to do so… it’s just wrong.

Kind of the same- it’s legal for the government to sell land.

You claim that’s wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:
Yawn.

Go cry to someone else. I do not care private land can be taken be taken Eminent Domain
Oh, and the S. Ct., has said it is fine to use Eminent Domain as you describe.

So what. Read my lips, “ Not one grain of soil.”

That’s is no metal concept of reverse Eminent Domain as you describe.

Most states have statutes that allow certain public land use like roads to lapse back to seed land owner when the state fails for a statutory period of time to provide maintenance. That is not reverse Eminent Domain and are limited by statute to specific uses and requirements.