http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c109:4:./temp/~c109rTMsl3::The actual House bill. It does a lot. Much more than she says, and not always quite what she says.
LA has all kinds of sprawl and many cities have increased their size; to the north the urban area skips a national forest and continues. She doesn't like this. In Idaho, many cities are bound by BLM land. You skip the federal land, and it's like "skipping" from Mandeville Canyon "over to" Vacaville. This bill transfers BLM land to counties and cities; they probably will sell it to developers. It doesn't transfer land directly to developers for free; what the cities and counties do, that's their business.
Moreover, there are lots of bikers and ATV users. Currently they use BLM land. Conservationists hate it; they want them banned. Concentrate them in one area and forbid them in another, rather than let the entire area suffer low-grade damage ... which is the better choice? Or do we just say that public lands are just for part of the public, those that like wilderness? "Public use" is for a part of the public? I don't trust those that want to preserve things for "the people" unless they're clear that it's not *all* the people, but just some of the people.
Not going to take the time to read the rest of the bill. This seems like a compromise between those that just think people in small towns in Idaho should move to reasonable places like LA and leave the countryside for the sake of the few Angelenos that might get there, and people that love where they live but want to have more control over their surroundings.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
