Federal Land Within the Southeast Bill

[MasterJedi]

Didn't someone introduce a bill to privatize the Tennessee Valley Authority (the federal governnment would supposedly get $15-20 billion off of an auction)?

I introduced that.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

1. I don't have one

Uh huh

If anyone else knows that'd be nice

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uh huh. No offense intended, but I'm starting to smell a rat now.

Who was it who came up with this proposal in the first place? And why?

[TomC]

Cash - most of the land probably was never owned by the states, except in Texas. The battlefields etc nobody's really worried about - you're not just going to sell those off - but to expect a free gift of all the National Forests etc that you can then sell off is patently absurd. This is a billions of dollars gift package we're talking about here - right after the debate about the federal budget deficit...

Thank you senator Trondheim, though your post clears up nothing.  I'll add I would never sell off any park land and quite frankly this beautiful land, that I have grown up near, has more significance to me than the battlefields, although I'd never sell those either.

If you read carefully, you'll see I'm negotiating in part, and in part asking Ebowed and Bono- who seems to now decline a debate about the issue he brought to fruition- what the intent of the bill is. Originally, I voted against the SE initiative because I thought the cost would be too high, the cost of maintaining and purchasing. If this is to pass, I have to prepare the regional government for the cost. So, I guess I'd also like to know from Ebowed and Bono, and any other southeasterner, are you going to support either tax increases, a bond issuance, or a combination of the two. It may be the cost is too high, which is why I originally suggested to Bono that we get a list of the lands and suggest to the feds we begin negotiating in pieces or groups of lands rather than the whole thing. That didn't happen and I voted against the initiative, although once it passed, promised Bono and others, that since a majority supported it, I would do my duty as governor and make the request. Senator Ebowed has been kind enough to sponsor the bill to fulfill the wishes of our citizens. But if I am expected to just say "oh, whatever you want" rather than negotiate to Senator Texasgurl's "market value" comment, well I wouldn't be a very good steward of my constituents' tax dollars, now would I?

[TomC]

Here is the best link I can find with about 30 minutes of looking. It is a map of a lot of the SE, but does not include Texas, La or Ark. And clearly, it's a map, not the list we're looking for.

http://cars.er.usgs.gov/posters/Herpetology/ARMI_Southeast_Region/armi_southeast2.gif

[TomC]

I'll also add the original initiative had "return" as the verb whereas this bill has "ownership transferred to" as the action.

[Ebowed]

So, I guess I'd also like to know from Ebowed and Bono, and any other southeasterner, are you going to support either tax increases, a bond issuance, or a combination of the two.

I don't particularly mind tax increases, although we don't technically have a budget yet in the Southeast (?), so perhaps this bill wasn't introduced at the right time.  It was simply introduced to meet the demands of the resolution.

I'll also add the original initiative had "return" as the verb whereas this bill has "ownership transferred to" as the action.

When writing the bill, I grabbed the text of the original resolution and made the text clearer to remove any confusion.  That was the only reason behind any word changes.

No offense intended, but I'm starting to smell a rat now.

I'm fairly sure that the intention of the resolution was well-known to everyone voting for it.

Who was it who came up with this proposal in the first place?

Bono.

And why?

So that the region would have control over more of the land actually located in it...

[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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I'm fairly sure that the intention of the resolution was well-known to everyone voting for it.

Maybe so, but it was not well-known to the Senate. I'm very possibly over-reacting here but the whole thing just looks... quite dishonest... to me. And I don't like that.
We should have been told exactly what land we would be giving up and that we would not be getting a penny in return.

Can any of the supporters of this please explain why we were not told this as soon as the bill came to the floor? Thanks.

[TomC]

It was not clear to me, why I've been asking what the intent was. I suspect Bono's position is similar to Emsworth's above, but I don't know for sure. I wish he would comment here.

No one, as far as I can tell, is trying to deceive anyone. I apologize if that seems like what's going on- it's not. Some of us just aren't sure:

1. what Bono intended when he worded his initiative "return."

2. What the senate will agree to.

Why doesn't the senate, by amendment or discussion, let us know what it will agree to? Then if it is acceptable to us, we (SE) can discuss or do an initiative as to whether or not we can or will agree to your proposal. Senaor Ebowed',s bill and the amendment (Wixted's) are good places to start.

[CheeseWhiz]

I'm fairly sure that the intention of the resolution was well-known to everyone voting for it.

Maybe so, but it was not well-known to the Senate. I'm very possibly over-reacting here but the whole thing just looks... quite dishonest... to me. And I don't like that.
We should have been told exactly what land we would be giving up and that we would not be getting a penny in return.

All they're doing is asking if they can control over the land that's actually in the Southeast, the rest is up to the Senate.  What on earth is dishonest about that?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

All they're doing is asking if they can control over the land that's actually in the Southeast, the rest is up to the Senate.  What on earth is dishonest about that?

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.
I might be overreacting (in fact that's very likely) but I just *don't* like that sort of thing...

[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.

[TomC]

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.

That's absolutely correct.

[Gabu]

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

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?

I would feel much better about this bill if it wasn't just a free giveaway to the Southeast.

[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.

[Colin]

I will not vote for this if this proposition does not include some sort of sale of the land to the regional government. 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.

I proposed my amendments in order to try and soften this bill because in its current form it calls for a complete grab of all current federal property in the Southeast except military bases. We get no actual list of federal lands to be turned over to the Southeast from either Bono or Ebowed and neither do we have any sort of understanding of what constitutes a military installation.

Conceivably in its current state the Southeast could completely take over the operation of everything from Cape Canaveral to the Smoky Mountains National Park with no prior approval or notice of the federal government except in the form of this vague bill.

Another issue is whether this would stretched to offshore reserves as well. Would the intercostal waterway be effected? Would maintainance of the intercostal waterway then fall to regional authorities in the Southeast due to its being given back to the Southeast?

What this bill needs are three things:

1.) An exact list of all federal lands in the Southeast affected by this bill which must also be approved by the governor of the Southeast.
2.) Some monetary amount to be paid for all the lands that are to be sold back to the Southeast.
3.) A specific means of returning the land to regional authority and a clause stating the right of the federal government to resume control of these lands at any time.

Barring these proivisions this bill is essentially too vague or broad to be effectively applied and must be voted down.

[Ebowed]

I'm fairly sure that the intention of the resolution was well-known to everyone voting for it.

Maybe so, but it was not well-known to the Senate. I'm very possibly over-reacting here but the whole thing just looks... quite dishonest... to me. And I don't like that.
We should have been told exactly what land we would be giving up and that we would not be getting a penny in return.

Can any of the supporters of this please explain why we were not told this as soon as the bill came to the floor? Thanks.

Well, if you want me to be completely candid...

I thought it was self-evident from the wording of the bill and it was only being asked to stir a hornet's nest; that's why I didn't answer them until I began to realize that some of the people asking that were sincere.

There was no dishonesty associated with the bill at all.  Hilariously enough this resolution passed without controversy in the Southeast, and only when a Senator or two takes action on it does everyone go crazy and the Progressive Conservative Party Action Alerts come out of the woodwork.  Naturally the typicals are all good and pissed off at the right people, and should the President sign this they would find it worthy of impeachment.  I didn't see any of these people complaining like this when the resolution was up for a vote in the Southeast.

[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.

[Colin]

I'm fairly sure that the intention of the resolution was well-known to everyone voting for it.

Maybe so, but it was not well-known to the Senate. I'm very possibly over-reacting here but the whole thing just looks... quite dishonest... to me. And I don't like that.
We should have been told exactly what land we would be giving up and that we would not be getting a penny in return.

Can any of the supporters of this please explain why we were not told this as soon as the bill came to the floor? Thanks.

Well, if you want me to be completely candid...

I thought it was self-evident from the wording of the bill and it was only being asked to stir a hornet's nest; that's why I didn't answer them until I began to realize that some of the people asking that were sincere.

There was no dishonesty associated with the bill at all.  Hilariously enough this resolution passed without controversy in the Southeast, and only when a Senator or two takes action on it does everyone go crazy and the Progressive Conservative Party Action Alerts come out of the woodwork.  Naturally the typicals are all good and pissed off at the right people, and should the President sign this they would find it worthy of impeachment.  I didn't see any of these people complaining like this when the resolution was up for a vote in the Southeast.

I personally can't believe that people would be calling for impeaching the President over this issue. That seems very low and completely uncalled for. A President should only be impeached if he has been involved in so-called high crimes and misdemeanors of which signing a bill like this is neither.

[PBrunsel]

I stand in firm opposition of this bill. As an historian, I can not allow our national birthright to be auctioned of to any region or any man. They are treasures which we all are entitled to.

[Joe Republic]

I wonder why Bono has not contributed to this debate so far?

[CheeseWhiz]

I will not vote for this if this proposition does not include some sort of sale of the land to the regional government. 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.

Well, I can see what you mean, but the way I see it they are pretty much paying for it by taking the monetary load off of us.  Now, if we were making money off this land, then I would support them paying us, but all the land is doing is costing us money.

[Colin]

I will not vote for this if this proposition does not include some sort of sale of the land to the regional government. 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.

Well, I can see what you mean, but the way I see it they are pretty much paying for it by taking the monetary load off of us.  Now, if we were making money off this land, then I would support them paying us, but all the land is doing is costing us money.

Then why, pray tell, would the regions want this land anyway? What's in it for them except being able to control hunting rights in the Smokey Mountains or maintaining a few battlefields? What's wrong with the status quo?

[CheeseWhiz]

I stand in firm opposition of this bill. As an historian, I can not allow our national birthright to be auctioned of to any region or any man. They are treasures which we all are entitled to.

As far as I can tell, they will be kept intact at a Regional level, they just want to look after their own land, that's all.

I will not vote for this if this proposition does not include some sort of sale of the land to the regional government. 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.

Well, I can see what you mean, but the way I see it they are pretty much paying for it by taking the monetary load off of us.  Now, if we were making money off this land, then I would support them paying us, but all the land is doing is costing us money.

Then why, pray tell, would the regions want this land anyway? What's in it for them except being able to control hunting rights in the Smokey Mountains or maintaining a few battlefields? What's wrong with the status quo?

This way, they can decide whether to up the amount they'll spend on X, or if Z is no longer needed and can/should be privatized.  Not saying they will do these things, they just want to have the say in what happens to their land.

[CheeseWhiz]

Okay, let me give an example:  There is currently a proposal in the Senate to privatize the Tennessee Valley Authority.  Whether or not it gets privatized will effect the Southeast people alone, yet they have no say in the matter beyond one Senator.  All they are asking is to be allowed to make those decisions themselves, instead of having a group of Senators, most of which won't be effected by what they're doing, decide for them.  With this bill, the Southeast gain control of their land, and we get rid of a monetary burden.