# Mike Lee introduced legislation to sale public land for housing



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

This man makes no secret why he wants public lands transferred. So he can discount, sale, and develop. Remember, this man has an election coming up with several alternative options. How any hunter, outdoorsman, or person who enjoys public lands can continue to endorse this guy, is really way beyond me. Let’s make sure we sale and develop ALL winter range for wildlife in our state. Develop, develop, develop. Water will certainly never run out.









Buying federal land for affordable housing? Sen. Mike Lee proposes a plan


Sen. Mike Lee has a novel approach to help alleviate Utah’s housing crunch while putting more of the vast amounts of federal land into local hands.




www.deseret.com


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

Heh, I was waiting for this thread to appear. 🍿

For what it's worth, this is one thing Mike Lee does I really don't like. He really needs to get off the state transfer horse. How about we hang out a no vacancy sign instead?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Lone_Hunter said:


> Heh, I was waiting for this thread to appear. 🍿
> 
> For what it's worth, this is one thing Mike Lee does I really don't like. He really needs to get off the state transfer horse. How about we hang out a no vacancy sign instead?


Isom, Edwards, and McMullin mirror most of his policies. There’s a simple solution here. Stop voting for the guy. The others mirror most his policies, but until he/someone is held accountable (and he is by far the worst in congress in regards to this) with votes, he has no reason to stop.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

There's definitely some deception involved in his statement. Building in the foothills will not be affordable housing but a few contractors will get very rich off the deal.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

ridgetop said:


> There's definitely some deception involved in his statement. Building in the foothills will not be affordable housing but a few contractors will get very rich off the deal.


Giving friends discounts is what politicians do best.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Why do people immediately think this means housing in the wilderness areas or somesuch? There's alot of land west of Dugway ... lol

-DallanC


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

DallanC said:


> Why do people immediately think this means housing in the wilderness areas or somesuch? There's alot of land west of Dugway ... lol
> 
> -DallanC


I think this is a pretty hilarious reply given what the Wasatch Front looks like now. If you support selling our public lands at a discount to develop them into more houses, idk what to tell you. The houses are plenty high on the hills already. We don’t need more and expedited development, especially at the expense of public lands. Normal BLM acreage is just as important to plenty of wildlife as wilderness.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Lone_Hunter said:


> All i'm going to add is that voting for a Democrat is a non effing starter. So, it's between a rock and a hard place. I really hate that.


Mike Lee has multiple Republican primary challengers and McMullin as an independent. McMullin is trying to thread a needle of getting Democrats not to run anyone so they’ll vote for him, while not changing his policy positions. I’m interested to see where his campaign goes after the primary. Search McMullins policy positions, you’ll find he mirrors Lee on most issues. He’s really the only one with a viable chance at beating Lee, but it’s going to have to provide that Democrats yield no candidate in the general.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

This subject can hit that slippery slop real quick.

Leave the folks who are running for office out of it and keep the subject to the possibility of selling public lands.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Critter said:


> This subject can hit that slippery slop real quick.
> 
> Leave the folks who are running for office out of it and keep the subject to the possibility of selling public lands.


I’m sorry Critter, but Mike Lee is pretty hostile to public lands forever and always and he has an election coming up and I feel like completely avoiding naming those running against him is pretty irresponsible of anyone who cares about public lands and them not being discounted, sold, and developed. I get the slippery slope, I also get that public lands aren’t everyone’s top voting issue so giving some context of the candidates against him in regards to that matters.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

We're not going to turn this into a debate for or against those in or running for political office.

If that is what you want to do there are other forums out there for it.

Sent from my SM-A426U using Tapatalk


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Get on subject of selling publiclands or I'll shut this discussion down


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Plain and simple - I HATE any notion or idea of selling public lands. I also HATE the idea of landlocked public lands. A huge thank you goes out to those individuals who keep up the good fight of keeping public lands public.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Critter said:


> Get on subject of selling publiclands or I'll shut this discussion down


After my last post I see that next one and thought….yeah maybe Critters right lol. That one should probably be removed.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

CPAjeff said:


> Plain and simple - I HATE any notion or idea of selling public lands. I also HATE the idea of landlocked public lands. A huge thank you goes out to those individuals who keep up the good fight of keeping public lands public.


Judging by some of the language in the article, I wouldn’t necessarily say this legislation targets land locked areas. It would also open up public land that has been developed to the edge of and is in essence what is stopping further development. I can think of a lot of areas valuable to wildlife like that. The legislation also allows up to 15% to be used for commercial use. A slippery slope and legislation that could open up a lot of vulnerable/valuable areas to development, and not just development but heavy development. I’m not going to take Mr. Anti-public land for any form of good faith when it comes to public lands.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

If all the candidates mirror Mike Lee on the issues, how are they better for public lands than Mike Lee?

For the record, I like public lands and I’ve never like Mike Lee from the day he rode in on the tea party express. I just don’t see how voting for anyone that mirrors on the issue is better for public lands?

Yay for public lands! Nay for anyone who wants to get rid of them. If only elections were for one issue then they’d be easy…


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

This whole idea is stupid. Simply get on google and look up any city in Utah, including Dugway, and you'll see tons, plenty, acre upon acres of available already private land that developers could build on. You could convert the entire state into private land and would gain very, very little "habitable" land. 
This is simply another attempt by Lee and other "let's hate the federal government" extreme Federalist thinkings. They in reality want to end America as a "United States". If he and is buddies(this includes Trump) win, you can kiss the "*United States* of America" good by.


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

We really haven't been united for some time now.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

IBTL


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

IBTL 



ridgetop said:


> There's definitely some deception involved in his statement. Building in the foothills will not be affordable housing but a few contractors will get very rich off the deal.


Exactly. Pretty unlikely to put low income housing in foothills and suburban communities with high adjacent real estate prices, but developers could make some serious coin making premium housing in some of these parcels. 

As for Lee, I have a host of reasons I will never vote for that guy, most of which don't involve stuff we talk about here. There are viable alternatives this year across the political spectrum in opposition. If schemes like these stir up some to vote for someone else, I'm fine with that, but Lee's TPL stance is only a small part of why I will vote for his opponent. McMuffin would probably most align with my overall political mindset and values at the moment, FWIW.


----------



## JerryH (Jun 17, 2014)

Vanilla said:


> If all the candidates mirror Mike Lee on the issues, how are they better for public lands than Mike Lee?
> 
> For the record, I like public lands and I’ve never like Mike Lee from the day he rode in on the tea party express. I just don’t see how voting for anyone that mirrors on the issue is better for public lands?


The other candidates are just less creepy!


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Judging by some of the language in the article, I wouldn’t necessarily say this legislation targets land locked areas. It would also open up public land that has been developed to the edge of and is in essence what is stopping further development. I can think of a lot of areas valuable to wildlife like that. The legislation also allows up to 15% to be used for commercial use. A slippery slope and legislation that could open up a lot of vulnerable/valuable areas to development, and not just development but heavy development. I’m not going to take Mr. Anti-public land for any form of good faith when it comes to public lands.


Yeah, I just decided to throw that little rant in while I was standing on the soap box! 

Public land needs to stay public land - regardless of where it is at.


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

I think these are important discussions to have on Hunting web sites. After all, we are allowed to hunt thru regulations made by those we elect. I can see deleting a post here or there if they get too personal, but there has to be education on where politicians stand so we can be informed voters. Better to discuss here than in our own echo chambers.

I dislike how much time Lee spends on trying to get Federal lands turned into State lands or Private lands. I have figured he was too far out of step to get anything passed out of the Senate on this matter. I might be wrong. His current angle is just another way to work the system and I hope it fails. I'd entertain a new person representing our State. Just don't give us the choice between Mike and Misty again, please. It causes people to not vote at all for a Senator.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Packout said:


> I think these are important discussions to have on Hunting web sites. After all, we are allowed to hunt thru regulations made by those we elect. I can see deleting a post here or there if they get too personal, but there has to be education on where politicians stand so we can be informed voters. Better to discuss here than in our own echo chambers.
> 
> I dislike how much time Lee spends on trying to get Federal lands turned into State lands or Private lands. I have figured he was too far out of step to get anything passed out of the Senate on this matter. I might be wrong. His current angle is just another way to work the system and I hope it fails. I'd entertain a new person representing our State. Just don't give us the choice between Mike and Misty again, please. It causes people to not vote at all for a Senator.


To Lee's credit, and our detriment, this may be the most likely public land attack/transfer bill he's ever introduced. I could see something like this actually gaining enough legs to stand on. An outright transfer of hundred of millions of acres across the entire west? Unlikely. So now he's doing the smart thing and using the deaths by a thousand cuts method.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> To Lee's credit, and our detriment, this may be the most likely public land attack/transfer bill he's ever introduced. I could see something like this actually gaining enough legs to stand on. An outright transfer of hundred of millions of acres across the entire west? Unlikely. So now he's doing the smart thing and using the deaths by a thousand cuts method.


Utah will declare a "housing state of emergency" and get this passed lol. 


I know that isn't really it, but it sure seems they are resorting to the ticky tacky BS now.


----------



## hossblur (Jun 15, 2011)

Would be nice to smack him down in the primary. Be a real good scalp to wave at other sellers of public


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Backcountry Hunters and Anglers link to contact the Representatives sponsoring this legislation, it is the top issue on this link:









Take Action


Backcountry Hunters & Anglers is the voice for our wild public lands, waters and wildlife.




www.backcountryhunters.org


----------



## Ramon.Segura (9 mo ago)

I will say this from a developer's standpoint. We are not running out of land to develop in Utah. We have enough space to build withing this valley for another 1.5 million people. Lee's angle is one that benefits us developers. There is not one single affordable housing project in conjunction with cities/counties that ends up affordable. Especially in time of inflation and/or RE booms. The inflation index is used to curtail the affordability sector out of the project. Now..... if Lee is genuinely concerned about affordable housing he's living in a pipe dream. If he's just using the affordability angle for a land grab then he thinks he's a genius. 

Having said that......Would I vote for someone other than Lee? Currently in the grand scheme of things; NO! That's because elections are multi issued and you have to go with the lesser of all the evils. What we need is more tranportation solutions to adjust to the growth of the metro area. We need East-West rapid access and we do not have it. But that will only make housing less affordable for the lower tier earners. It's a real problem and the solutions are not pretty.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Ramon.Segura said:


> I will say this from a developer's standpoint. We are not running out of land to develop in Utah. We have enough space to build withing this valley for another 1.5 million people. Lee's angle is one that benefits us developers. There is not one single affordable housing project in conjunction with cities/counties that ends up affordable. Especially in time of inflation and/or RE booms. The inflation index is used to curtail the affordability sector out of the project. Now..... if Lee is genuinely concerned about affordable housing he's living in a pipe dream. If he's just using the affordability angle for a land grab then he thinks he's a genius.
> 
> Having said that......Would I vote for someone other than Lee? Currently in the grand scheme of things; NO! That's because elections are multi issued and you have to go with the lesser of all the evils. What we need is more tranportation solutions to adjust to the growth of the metro area. We need East-West rapid access and we do not have it. But that will only make housing less affordable for the lower tier earners. It's a real problem and the solutions are not pretty.


This has nothing to do with affordable housing. Lee has an anti-public land axe to grind and has his entire political career and this is just his latest convenient way to sell it.


----------



## tmac (Feb 19, 2012)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> Isom, Edwards, and McMullin mirror most of his policies. There’s a simple solution here. Stop voting for the guy. The others mirror most his policies, but until he/someone is held accountable (and he is by far the worst in congress in regards to this) with votes, he has no reason to stop.


I will vote for Mike Lee he has done so much good in DC. I will never vote for Mcmuffin he is just a democrat in sheep's clothing


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> This has nothing to do with affordable housing. Lee has an anti-public land axe to grind and has his entire political career and this is just his latest convenient way to sell it.


This bill was intorduced as an affordable housing option. However, as stated before none of the affordable housing projects end up affordable and this is either a pipe dream or truly a land grab. Politicians smoke screen the masses this way. "Oh look! Lee's doing something about affordable housing" Truth is 99.9% of people leave it at that and never follow up on how little affordable housing (in this case) actually got developed.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

Ramon.Segura said:


> I will say this from a developer's standpoint. We are not running out of land to develop in Utah. We have enough space to build withing this valley for another 1.5 million people.


It's also the fact that we want to keep shoving everything in ONE part of Utah. 

Once you leave Utah county headed south, you won't be at a loss for land that could be developed. Yeah it's in the middle of nowhere. Slap a walmart and a maverick there and it will be booming in no time. 

Box Elder is starting to grow, though frankly if I headed that way I would probably just keep going and live in S Idaho where residents actually get hunting benefits.


----------



## Daisy (Jan 4, 2010)

In my opinion I would not worry about it too much. Lee is an ineffective, obstructionist, Pea****. In his 12 years he has only gotten 4 pieces of legislation that he sponsored or co-sponsored to the President's desk. Two bills were to rename Federal buildings, and two bills were to transfer federal land to Box Elder County and the Town of Alta.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Daisy said:


> In my opinion I would not worry about it too much. Lee is an ineffective, obstructionist, Pea****. In his 12 years he has only gotten 4 pieces of legislation that he sponsored or co-sponsored to the President's desk. Two bills were to rename Federal buildings, and two bills were to transfer federal land to Box Elder County and the Town of Alta.


I think of all the public land attacks Lee has wagered, this is probably the most feasible. But yes, Lee has gotten little to nothing done in congress while there(which is a good thing when you consider it’s him).


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

RandomElk16 said:


> It's also the fact that we want to keep shoving everything in ONE part of Utah.
> 
> Once you leave Utah county headed south, you won't be at a loss for land that could be developed. Yeah it's in the middle of nowhere. Slap a walmart and a maverick there and it will be booming in no time.
> 
> Box Elder is starting to grow, though frankly if I headed that way I would probably just keep going and live in S Idaho where residents actually get hunting benefits.


Agreed, and there has been an attempt to kind of do some of those things, yet local governments fight companies tooth and nail when they're trying to come in at times as well. There's been multiple companies that have tried in the past year to work out moving some of their operations to the area, yet local government makes it so difficult several have pulled the plug on coming to the area. We do have a Walmart and Maverik though.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Daisy said:


> In his 12 years he has only gotten 4 pieces of legislation that he sponsored or co-sponsored to the President's desk.


I didn't realize it was this bad. That is amazing!


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Daisy said:


> In his 12 years he has only gotten 4 pieces of legislation that he sponsored or co-sponsored to the President's desk. Two bills were to rename Federal buildings, and two bills were to transfer federal land to Box Elder County and the Town of Alta.


(tongue in cheek) Sometimes not passing new laws is the most amazing accomplishment a politician can have. Do we really need more $#17 on the books?


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

If there was not a whole crap ton of bad laws on the books that could use changing I could get on board with that argument. We elect lawmakers to....well...make laws! Passing a bill is not always adding laws. You can pass bills that reduce laws, regulation, red tape, unnecessary bureaucracy, etc. 

Or you can go convey about 33 acres total of land to two localities in Utah in 2011 and 2012, and over the next 10 years do nothing except rename a couple buildings. How much tax payer dollars has his existence used up over the last 11 years? I do not call this a good return on investment. 

Goodness.


----------



## Lone_Hunter (Oct 25, 2017)

Like I said earlier, rock and a hard place. I hate his stance on public land. I love the stance against Biden's gun control. You don't see Romnney doing anything.








4 Senate Republicans Introduce Resolution to Block Biden's Gun Control


Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, announced he is partnering with three other GOP senators to block President Joe Biden's administration from changing federal gun rules.




www.newsmax.com




Totally unrelated to public land I know, the point is, it's not a clear cut issue. 
I hate the fact that I'm forced to choose one issue or another. 
2A all the way, all day, every day, and twice on sunday.
Same with public land.
But I have to pick one. Ain't nobody that supports both.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Lone_Hunter said:


> Like I said earlier, rock and a hard place. I hate his stance on public land. I love the stance against Biden's gun control. You don't see Romnney doing anything.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I’ll DM you a reply.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

The decision between public lands and the 2nd amendment is a false dichotomy. The 2nd amendment is just that, a constitutional right that politicians can’t get rid of. The constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms. If the politicians infringe on those rights, they get slapped back.

We have absolutely no constitutional to public lands. If the politicians get rid of our public lands, they’re gone for good. We need the politicians to protect them.

You absolutely can choose and have both.


----------



## MadHunter (Nov 17, 2009)

Come Vanilla (I know I'm opening a can of worms here) .... If you "truly" believe that just by virtue of being a constitutional amendment the 2A is safe from attack, you live in a different world than I do. I'm not saying that it will be repealed anytime soon but the last 4 words have had virtually ZERO meaning to anyone for a very long time. The dilution of its meaning is evident in all the regulation, tricks and schemes that politicians engage in with special interest to regulate and infringe upon it. Question: Can you name another constitutional right that you must go through hoops, loops and red tape galore to exercise?

Both issues are based on legislation of different nature but legislation none the less and politicians are the gatekeepers that we as citizens weigh through the casting of our votes. All issues must be weighed according to our values, interests and how the outcome of those issues affects us as citizens. It is therefore not a false dichotomy; just a different natured one. Land vs 2A? 2A all the way!!!


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I never said the 2nd Amendment is safe from attack. I said a false dichotomy was set up by someone saying you have to choose one or the other. And I will maintain that is true all the way, and have the constitution and a history of 225+ years to support my statement.

Yes, the 2nd Amendment is more safe than public lands are because one is a protected constitutional right and the other is not. That is simply a fact. (The real kind of facts that are actually true) 

I’m not suggesting anything more than that. But I promise you this: my arms that I keep and bear, which are not few, become pretty inconsequential if we lose our public lands. And the fact that I can have the lower of an AR15 won’t mean much to me at that point.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

MadHunter said:


> Come Vanilla (I know I'm opening a can of worms here) .... If you "truly" believe that just by virtue of being a constitutional amendment the 2A is safe from attack, you live in a different world than I do. I'm not saying that it will be repealed anytime soon but the last 4 words have had virtually ZERO meaning to anyone for a very long time. The dilution of its meaning is evident in all the regulation, tricks and schemes that politicians engage in with special interest to regulate and infringe upon it. Question: Can you name another constitutional right that you must go through hoops, loops and red tape galore to exercise?
> 
> Both issues are based on legislation of different nature but legislation none the less and politicians are the gatekeepers that we as citizens weigh through the casting of our votes. All issues must be weighed according to our values, interests and how the outcome of those issues affects us as citizens. It is therefore not a false dichotomy; just a different natured one. Land vs 2A? 2A all the way!!!


I think his point is that there are things more likely to occur than others.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

1-eye is correct, but I’ll add to it that these two are not mutually exclusive. We can have our cake and eat it too, as they say.


----------



## colorcountrygunner (Oct 6, 2009)

RandomElk16 said:


> It's also the fact that we want to keep shoving everything in ONE part of Utah.
> 
> Once you leave Utah county headed south, you won't be at a loss for land that could be developed. Yeah it's in the middle of nowhere. Slap a walmart and a maverick there and it will be booming in no time.
> 
> Box Elder is starting to grow, though frankly if I headed that way I would probably just keep going and live in S Idaho where residents actually get hunting benefits.


You been to Cedar City and St. George lately?

Edit: I guess I should've thought about the content of your post more. Plenty of land to develop down that way and it is being developed speedily. Much to my disgust.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Just scrolling through this thread. Why hasn't post #13 been removed? Seems like #7 is iffy, too.

Mike Lee has 67% of the primary votes, nobody else is close. He's a lock in the general because, after all, this is Utah. Get used to it. Besides his incredible legislative body of work, remember that he and his buddy Cruz also shut down the government. No idea if recent revelations about his anti-democracy activity will affect the election, but I seriously doubt it. It's all about the "R" here (See post #7).

So, we can look forward to six more years of self-righteous obstructionism and anti-public lands rubbish. From my point of view the less he gets done the better.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

paddler said:


> Just scrolling through this thread. Why hasn't post #13 been removed? Seems like #7 is iffy, too.
> 
> Mike Lee has 67% of the primary votes, nobody else is close. He's a lock in the general because, after all, this is Utah. Get used to it. Besides his incredible legislative body of work, remember that he and his buddy Cruz also shut down the government. No idea if recent revelations about his anti-democracy activity will affect the election, but I seriously doubt it. It's all about the "R" here (See post #7).
> 
> So, we can look forward to six more years of self-righteous obstructionism and anti-public lands rubbish. From my point of view the less he gets done the better.


How 13 was never removed is beyond me by mods threatening to lock the thread over mentioning the people running against him.



colorcountrygunner said:


> You been to Cedar City and St. George lately?
> 
> Edit: I guess I should've thought about the content of your post more. Plenty of land to develop down that way and it is being developed speedily. Much to my disgust.


Well, Mike Lee has some BLM land for sale for you!


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

Post #7 and #13 have been removed.

There is a report function to report inappropriate posts. Please use it - that really helps us mods!!

Even though the mod pay, benefits, and potential pension are UNBELIEVABLE we can’t read every post as soon as it’s posted. 😉


----------



## JerryH (Jun 17, 2014)

Texts reveal how Sen. Mike Lee explored ideas to overturn 2020 presidential election


Text messages between Sen. Mike Lee and then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows show how far Lee went in exploring avenues for overturning the 2020 presidential election.




www.ksl.com





It surprises me KSL of all news outlets has ran some articles on Mike Lee that are not so positive on him lately. Has the Utah GOP grown quietly tired of him?? 
I enjoy reading the viewer comments about him. But in the end we are stuck with him.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

JerryH said:


> Texts reveal how Sen. Mike Lee explored ideas to overturn 2020 presidential election
> 
> 
> Text messages between Sen. Mike Lee and then-White House chief of staff Mark Meadows show how far Lee went in exploring avenues for overturning the 2020 presidential election.
> ...


This was another not good thing by Mike Lee. They are just reporting the truth of what he did, this is waaaaay off the topic of public lands though, so it may be worth editing/deleting it. I would prefer the thread stay open.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

#1DEER 1-I said:


> This was another not good thing by Mike Lee. They are just reporting the truth of what he did, this is waaaaay off the topic of public lands though, so it may be worth editing/deleting it. I would prefer the thread stay open.


Not sure it matters if this thread stays open. Pretty much everybody who's been here very long knows about Lee's terrible track record on public lands. This latest crap won't change any minds, just more of the same. What amazes me is how easily and consistently people can be manipulated into voting against their own best interests.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

colorcountrygunner said:


> You been to Cedar City and St. George lately?
> 
> Edit: I guess I should've thought about the content of your post more. Plenty of land to develop down that way and it is being developed speedily. Much to my disgust.


Yeah, our area is running down a path at full speed while most of us are screaming there is a cliff. Utah is not lacking in land to develop when it comes to likely carrying capacity issues like water and infrastructure. I mean Iron Co is making international news for it's water policy. Yay!

It will be interesting to see if some of the counties up north start to discuss potential growth caps now that they are increasing penalties for municipal water infractions and ramping up conservation regulations. Growth caps are an idea that come with their own unfortunate baggage but multiple counties in our state, including my own, have been so negligent on water policy that I'm not sure we have many other options. At some point government and agencies have to be accountable to the realities on the ground and come to terms with the consequences of years of kicking the can down the road.

I truly don't envy most public officials in Utah right now facing these two interconnected dilemmas.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

backcountry said:


> Yeah, our area is running down a path at full speed while most of us are screaming there is a cliff. Utah is not lacking in land to develop when it comes to likely carrying capacity issues like water and infrastructure. I mean Iron Co is making international news for it's water policy. Yay!
> 
> It will be interesting to see if some of the counties up north start to discuss potential growth caps now that they are increasing penalties for municipal water infractions and ramping up conservation regulations. Growth caps are an idea that come with their own unfortunate baggage but multiple counties in our state, including my own, have been so negligent on water policy that I'm not sure we have many other options. At some point government and agencies have to be accountable to the realities on the ground and come to terms with the consequences of years of kicking the can down the road.
> 
> I truly don't envy most public officials in Utah right now facing these two interconnected dilemmas.


Yeah, it really doesn’t even take a lot of common sense to realize water is the limiting issue, not developable land in the state. As has been mentioned over and over. Just Lees excuse to forward his anti-public land agenda.


----------



## RandomElk16 (Sep 17, 2013)

colorcountrygunner said:


> You been to Cedar City and St. George lately?
> 
> Edit: I guess I should've thought about the content of your post more. Plenty of land to develop down that way and it is being developed speedily. Much to my disgust.


Yeah I know those are growing (to many people's dismay), I was mostly talking about the 200 miles between Springville and Cedar City lol. 

The front and the far south are pretty much where we settle. I get it, but the time is going to come where we stop shoving everyone between the lake and front. Utah has 3.2M people. 2.6M of those are along the Wasatch Front. Ogden to Provo is 80 miles. Provo to St. George is more than triple that. So it's just congested like crazy.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

Steven Rinella's company MeatEater addressed Mike Lee's legislation. Spoiler alert, also not a fan. Let's show our anti public lands Senator the door.









New Senate Bill Would Turn Public Lands Into Housing Developments


A new bill in the United States Senate would allow state and local governments across the West to purchase federally-managed public lands at steeply discounted prices. If the bill’s author gets his wish, those lands would then be earmarked for housing development. S.4062 was introduced on April...




www.themeateater.com


----------



## maverick9465 (Nov 21, 2016)

I've called both our Senators' offices and left a message voicing opposition. I know this may not do much, but the more of us who call the better our chances. I've been told politicians give more attention to issues people call about instead of the stand email campaign.


----------



## callofthewild2 (May 10, 2021)

does anyone have any information on Becky Edwards who is going up against Mike Lee?


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

callofthewild2 said:


> does anyone have any information on Becky Edwards who is going up against Mike Lee?


I watched the debate between her and Ally Isom a few days ago ... and I hands down liked Ally way more than Becky. See if they recorded the debate, watch it for yourself and make up your own mind.

Ally seemed very pro-public lands, coming from a small southern Utah town .

Unless something dramatic comes to light, ATM I'd be voting for Ally Isom.

-DallanC


----------



## callofthewild2 (May 10, 2021)

will look that up and see if i can find this debate.


----------



## ridgetop (Sep 13, 2007)

DallanC said:


> I watched the debate between her and Ally Isom a few days ago ... and I hands down liked Ally way more than Becky. See if they recorded the debate, watch it for yourself and make up your own mind.
> 
> Ally seemed very pro-public lands, coming from a small southern Utah town .
> 
> ...


I feel the same way.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

maffleck6 said:


> Just curious as to how this works exactly? If Lee supports selling public lands how do said lands get sold? I don't think Romney or Lee have much to do with it do they? If Lee is saying he supports States rights and then the States do what they do, is he really to blame/credit? If he were against selling public lands does it matter? My understanding of how this works is the States rights folks want the land to be returned to the State. The battle would be with State leaders to preserve public lands. If Congress returned land to the States, the States would decide what to do. Take it further, If you want to be mad/happy with Erda township for how they are handling development, why would you blame/credit the Governor? I recognize that you can dislike a politician and therefore take issue with that person. I would rather have land returned to the State and local governments and let them be accountable. But maybe that is naive and land needs federal protection? Who do you all think should be making these public land decisions?


I've got you covered, maffleck6. This is where you meant to post them. 

As for the content, I struggle with the continued use of the word "returned." The state did not start out with these lands and then have then taken from them. The lands started with the federal government. They've never belonged to the state, so they can't be "returned to the state." 

As for who SHOULD be making these decisions, I agree that more local control is better in theory. However, in this instance, the state's own analysis showed that they would have to lease and/or sell significant portions of public lands to be able to afford managing what was left. If it stays in federal control, they remain public. If the lands are turned over to the states, they will not. This is not a guess or a theory, it is a reality based upon the state's own report several years ago. Utah simply could not afford to keep those lands public, and then we lose them forever. That's not acceptable, regardless of how I feel about state powers (not rights) and local control.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

I will vote for Isom or Edwards during the primary. Edwards has the better chance, but it’s really going to come down to a McMullin/Lee runoff in November. It has been nice to see yards with both Isom and Edwards signs even down here in rural areas of the state. I look forward to the general debates if Mike Lee will actually show up to them.(He likely won’t).


----------



## callofthewild2 (May 10, 2021)

i watched the debate and i have to agree with Dallan C. let's see what happens.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

callofthewild2 said:


> i watched the debate and i have to agree with Dallan C. let's see what happens.


Got a link?


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

callofthewild2 said:


> i watched the debate and i have to agree with Dallan C. let's see what happens.


To be clear I’d love to see Isom, Edward, or McMullin pull it out. Any of the 3 will be better alternatives. I watched some of the debate and I’d have to agree also with Dallan, Isom performed well.


----------



## #1DEER 1-I (Sep 10, 2007)

In fact, this latest polling kind of proves the point. McMullin is within striking distance here. Latest polling showing Lee 41%, McMullin 37%, with 19% undecided. I’d love to see Edwards or Isom beat him in the primary, but there’s a punchers chance here.

What I’m really not looking forward to? The amount of money in the race once the general hits and the amount of horrible ads we’re all going to have to watch lol. 





__





How would GOP Senate candidates fare against Evan McMullin in Utah? New poll reveals answers


This month’s Republican primary election will determine which of three candidates will face independent Evan McMullin in the race for U.S. Senate in November. But how do Becky Edwards, Ally Isom and Sen. Mike Lee stack up against McMullin if the general election were held today?




www.deseret.com


----------



## callofthewild2 (May 10, 2021)

Vanilla said:


> Got a link?


https://youtu.be/OULZoPEZYiM


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

callofthewild2 said:


> https://youtu.be/OULZoPEZYiM


Interesting. That is a different debate than the one I watched on TV the other night. Lee decided not to attend that one. I'll watch this one as well.

-DallanC


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

DallanC said:


> Interesting. That is a different debate than the one I watched on TV the other night. Lee decided not to attend that one. I'll watch this one as well.
> 
> -DallanC


I was hoping to see the full debate that Lee passed on attending. I've only been able to find clips.

Isom is showing last place in all metrics of polling. If she was intent on getting Lee out she would have dropped out of the race and endorsed Edwards. That said, I doubt she wants to endorse Edwards. Isom is not Lee, but she is not nearly as moderate as Edwards is.


----------



## paddler (Jul 17, 2009)

Which candidate is the strongest supporter of public lands?


----------

