Provenza is a Democratic legislator, one of Wyoming's few, who used blaze orange t-shirts recalling big game hunting for her campaign last year. She names names in this article, which is very much worth reading.
Tuesday, June 24, 2025
Lex Anteinternet: Blog Mirror: Guest Column: Wyoming Is Full Of Pol...
Blog Mirror: Senate referee rules out public land sales in megabill
However, Lee still promises a new provision.
Senate referee rules out public land sales in megabill
Lex Anteinternet: Teton County Wants Same Federal Land Sale Exemptio...
Lex Anteinternet: Teton County Wants Same Federal Land Sale Exemptio...:
Teton County Wants Same Federal Land Sale Exemption Montana Got
This is one of those areas which Mike Lee imagines will benefit from his land sale provision:
Teton County Wants Same Federal Land Sale Exemption Montana Got Teton County commissioners have sent a letter to Wyoming’s congressional delegation asking that federal lands in the county be exempt from any proposed sale. Montana got an exemption, and Teton
Wyomingites don't want this. Teton County, which has a housing problem (caused by the super wealthy) doesn't want it.
When will we see Hageman, Barrasso and Lummis begin to reflect what Wyoming wants?
Lex Anteinternet: Lee's proposal.
Lex Anteinternet: Lee's proposal.:
Lee's proposal.
Totally unacceptable.
Housing prices are crushing families and keeping young Americans from living where they grew up. We need to change that.
Thanks to YOU—the AMERICAN PEOPLE—here’s what I plan to do:
1. REMOVE ALL Forest Service land. We are NOT selling off our forests.
2. SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE the amount of BLM land in the bill. Only land WITHIN 5 MILES of population centers is eligible.
3. Establish FREEDOM ZONES to ensure these lands benefit AMERICAN FAMILIES.
4. PROTECT our farmers, ranchers, and recreational users. They come first.
Yes, the Byrd Rule limits what can go in the reconciliation bill, but I’m doing everything I can to support President Trump and move this forward.
Stay tuned. We’re just getting started.
Lee is in real trouble. This proposal is unacceptable. No sales of public lands should be allowed, and Lee needs to be voted out of office.
Lex Anteinternet: Congress woman Hageman responds, and Sen. Lee reacts.
Lex Anteinternet: Congress woman Hageman responds, and Sen. Lee reacts.:
Congress woman Hageman responds, and Sen. Lee reacts.
Lee Offers Compromise On Public Land Sales Bill, Hunters Say No Deal
Sen. Lee is apparently offering something, but it's not clear what, and the opposition is saying no. I'm saying no as well. I adamantly opposed transferring public lands away from public hands.
Congressman Hageman responded, or somebody working for her did, to a letter I wrote. It may of course be a form letter.
Dear Mr. Yeoman
Congress is currently in the budget reconciliation process, which allows for expedited consideration of certain tax, spending, and debt limit legislation. The House recently passed its version of the bill, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), which now awaits Senate consideration. Those Senate committees that received reconciliation instructions pursuant to H.Con.Res.14 have begun releasing legislative text for reconciliation consideration, but I want to note that such materials are not the final bill. These committee proposals must still be reviewed by the Senate parliamentarian for compliance with the Byrd rule and then pass the entire Senate to officially become part of the reconciliation bill. Such bill will then come back to the House for consideration in relation to what we passed earlier.
On June 11, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee released legislative text to be considered as part of Senate Republicans’ budget reconciliation bill. As you have noted, Subtitle C of the bill instructs the Director of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to identify not less than 0.50 percent and not more than 0.75 percent of the lands managed by these agencies for disposal pursuant to the specific conditions set forth in the statutory instructions. This would amount to between two and three million acres of the roughly 640 million acres owned by the federal government, with such lands to be made available solely for the purpose of housing and community development.
There is an extensive amount of downright flagrantly incorrect information being circulated as to the intent of this proposal, what lands would qualify for disposal should this become law, and how the process would proceed. Most notably, the Wilderness Society has produced a map for the purpose of ginning up opposition, despite the fact that such map has nothing to do with Subtitle C in any way whatsoever. It is thus necessary to clarify the situation, starting with the readily confirmable observation that there are no specific parcels or areas designated under the bill, and the details of the bill itself show that this is a commonsense proposal to identify and dispose of those BLM and USFS lands that are hindering local communities from meeting their housing and infrastructure needs, an issue with which Wyoming is all too familiar.
First, the bill does not propose selling off all federal lands. As I mentioned, it would only make available two to three million acres within the jurisdiction of the BLM and USFS in eleven states, including Wyoming. All such lands that are subject to valid existing rights (including grazing permits, ski areas, etc.), and those that are not located in the eleven eligible states are not subject to the bill. Those “Federally Protected Lands” (for example, National Parks, National Monuments, the National Wilderness Preservation System, the National Wildlife Refuge System, and more as defined in the bill) are not eligible for sale. All the lands sold pursuant to this proposal must be used “for the development of housing or to address associated community needs,” limiting not only the number of buyers, but likely making state and local governments the primary advocates and purchasers.
Second, this legislation does not directly offer any parcels for sale but instead provides for a robust public identification and nomination process to evaluate those unused lands that are close to existing infrastructure (such as surrounding Kemmerer, Wyoming), that are ideal for addressing the affordable housing crisis.
Both the BLM and USFS must consult with the governor, local governments, and Indian tribes regarding the suitability of the particular parcel of land for disposal before the proposed sale. Both agencies must also give priority to those lands that are nominated by state and local governments, are adjacent to existing developed areas, have access to existing infrastructure, are suitable for residential housing, reduce checkerboard land patterns, or which are isolated and inefficient to manage. All sales are to be held at fair market value, must provide state and local governments the first right of refusal, limit individual persons in how many acres they can acquire, and share revenue of the sales with the local government to assist with housing development.
This legislative proposal is now pending in the Senate and is thus not something I am currently being asked to vote on as your representative. This proposal was not included in the OBBBA that I voted for and which passed the House. However, I want to reiterate that much of the maps and information circulating about the bill are incorrect and that the proposal as drafted is a much more targeted approach to answer the needs of our local communities, who are hampered from further development due to the oversized footprint of the federal government in our states.
I encourage you to read the bill itself to understand what it does, and as importantly, what it does not do, when considering the benefits of this legislation. Thank you for reaching out to us.
Sincerely,
Rep. Harriet Hageman
Member of Congress
Well, at least its a response.
A few things.
I've taken at look at the bill, and I had before I received this letter, contrary to Congressman Hageman's suggestion that I, and others opposing this didn't.
This proposal still sucks. I have no interest, for example, in reducing checkerboard land patterns, particularly if we are now able to corner cross, as it sees we can. This land just opened to the public and now
Nor do I have any interest in disposing of Federal lands for an alleged "housing crisis" that largely doesn't exist in the form these things suggest. There's no requirement in any of these proposals to restrict sales of land to those really in need of housing. A process already exists to transfer lands where such things really exist. Sales for "fair market value", in the areas where this would apply in Wyoming, would result in transfers of land in Wyoming for castles for the rich, which I do not support. There's nothing to suggest the land would go to state and local governments given that, and I don't want state in local governments in the housing business to start with.
More than anything, this is the wolf's nose in the door. Once its passed, it'll push its way into the house.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)