Federal Land Within the Southeast Bill

[Emsworth]

I strongly urge the Senate to pass this legislation. The regional government of the Southeast is fully capable of managing parks, monuments, and similar lands. Military bases (as well as the buildings that house federal agencies) should, of course, remain in federal control.

I would have suggested that this legislation be extended to other regions as well, except that none of them have requested such a transfer. Certainly, there is no reason for which this idea should be limited to one region alone; if any other region requests a transfer, the Senate should meet that request.

[Emsworth]

I would be more inclined to support this bill's passage if it dealt with all five regions equally and simultaneously.  I can't really see why one region deserves special treatment.

I agree that other regions should be allowed to obtain their land if they please. However, only the Southeast has requested a return of the land. It is possible that some of other regions might want the federal government to continue controlling the land.

If the Senate decides to expand the scope of this bill to all regions, it might allow each region to vote on whether it wants to receive the lands or not.

[Emsworth]

The point isn't that the Southeast would like to control as much land as possible. This is not supposed to be some sort of business transaction between two competing companies. The point is that, in general, the regional governments--not the federal government--should be running things like parks and monuments.

I would oppose any attempt to transform this transfer of land into a sale of land.

[Emsworth]

Not so much the request as the *way* it was done; a lot of important information about the request was not mentioned until today or so.

Well, perhaps that's just an unintentional result of one's interpretation of the bill. I certainly don't think that there was any deliberate attempt to mislead the Senate.

[Emsworth]

It seems to me that the federal government would have spent a considerable amount of money on the upkeep of these plots of land.  Why is it unreasonable for the federal government to ask for some monetary compensation in light of that fact?

If the federal government were a company using the land to make a profit, I would agree. However, that is not the case. The federal government is not going to lose any potential profits by selling land. In fact, it will be saving money, because it will no longer have to pay for the upkeep of these lands.

[Emsworth]

Why should the federal government just give over this land to the regions? I think it would be unfair to the federal government not to be monetarily compensated for any land taken back by regional authorities.

Why would it be unfair? These lands are not a source of revenue for the federal government. The federal government will not be losing money by transferring them to the regions; on the contrary, they will be saving money (the cost of upkeep).

This amounts to nothing more than a transfer of public services from one level of government to another.

[Emsworth]

The Southeast does not "want" the land so that it can make a profit. Rather, the we merely believe that regions rather than the federal government are the proper bodies to be in charge of parks.