Printable View
It is not being well reported but they are ending leases right now with no plan for where the workforce will go or how they will complete the mission. This current EO is about dramatically divesting from real property holdings, not freezing the footprint in place.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trackhead
Thanks. That was my understanding. A post upthread made it sound like it’d happened more recently.Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn;[emoji[emoji6[emoji640
Im a pessemist by nature, but reading through the originally posted EO it doesnt seem to specifically target public lands.
I dont have any issue with targeting property that is no longer necessary, e.g. a storage or maintenance facility that has been sitting unused for 10yrs and could realistically be divested. But I have anecdotally heard of agencies that couldn't get rid of prime waterfront property for free just because of the environmental cleanup costs for the new owner.
All that said, the Interior Sec has said we should consider public lands a potentially 2T dollar assett on the govt balance sheet that could be used for deficit reduction, so I dont trust them at all and could very easily see them selling Yosemite to Elon just to own the libs.
BLM'er here. Just some context on the original intent of the Bureau, formed in 1946 by merging the General Land Office (GLO) with the Grazing Service. Congress wasn't entirely on board with the new "management" direction for public lands, rather than "disposal".
"I frankly say...that the very title of the bureau raises a very big question mark in my mind. It seems to me that the very purpose to be subserved is to change the historical policy of the United States from one of holding the public lands for transfer to ownership under private persons, to one of proprietary handling on the part of the United States government." —U.S. Senator Guy Cordon, Oregon, Congressional Record, July 13, 1946
Congress addressed this concern in the Interior Appropriations Act of 1947...
"Congress addressed another major concern in the Appropriations Act. The very name of the agency—the Bureau of Land Management—aroused suspicion among some western politicians. They believed, as Senator Guy Cordon of Oregon did, that the agency's title implied abandoning the nation's long-held policy of transferring public lands to individuals and private interests in favor of a policy of federal retention and proprietorship. Congress, consequently, directed Bureau funds be used for the "disposal," as well as the management and protection of, public lands, something that had not been done in recent General Land Office and Grazing Service appropriations acts."
Reference: https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/onli...tory/chap2.htm
Honestly don't what is going to happen, but I am working on several contingencies. Stinks because my whole staff are professionals that work very hard to do the right thing and we all live in and around the forests that we manage. We'll continue to put our heads down and do the work that needs to be done.
How ever this shakes out, thanks for your efforts as well as adding to the discussion.
DOI list of office closures. Unclear if this is a proposed list or an approved/scheduled/set list: https://democrats-naturalresources.h...rminations.pdf
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Trump wants to cut down America's forest. Just sign an EO, and viola! Timber!!!
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...xecutive-order
The president, in an executive order, has demanded an expansion in tree cutting across 280m acres (113m hectares) of national forests and other public lands, claiming that “heavy-handed federal policies” have made America reliant on foreign imports of timber.“It is vital that we reverse these policies and increase domestic timber production to protect our national and economic security,” the order adds.Trump has instructed the US Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to increase logging targets and for officials to circumvent the US’s Endangered Species Act by using unspecified emergency powers to ignore protections placed upon vulnerable creatures’ habitats.
anytime a company wants to right size they rid of the oldest guys who also make the most money, Trump keeps the oldest guys, gets rid of the youngest guys, will still have to retire the old guys and hire back the young guys if they are still around TO hire
but along with tarrifs this is be great ... you will see !
Well, I have no issue with supporting the timber industry on face value. Like it or not, we need the stuff. South East Alaska had a robust timber industry that essentially evaporated before I moved there. The pulp mill and timber industry was a big employer in Ketchikan/Sitka.
Timber is like oil, nobody likes to admit we need it, but we do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trackhead
interesting read http://www.sitnews.us/Kiffer/Ketchik...pulp_mill.html
I am close to paper manufacturing and know there is more supply than demand in the US, and consolidation due to that. trend is also US companies selling out to international ownership
But yet existing timber sales on forest service land are going without any bids because the value of the wood is too low right now. Flooding the market isn't going to improve that situation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trackhead
I have no issue with timber production. Like virtually everything Trump does, this is an order that has some vague correlation to a good idea, carried out in the dumbest way possible without any regard for how to actually achieve tangible benefits.
Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk
Yup, agreed. Wonder if that will change with Mr. Tariff going all crazy.
No idea.
GSA list of Fed buildings and facilities for disposal. I have no idea if there are USFS/BLM facilities included: https://www.gsa.gov/real-estate/real...-property-list
This is different than the list I posted upthread which are building leases under DOI to be ended.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
^^per that list, the first property I researched, and it's totally justified to sell. Read this article from 2022. For those with short attention span, the feds spend $800k per year maintaining the property, it isn't used, and was purchased as a "security buffer" around the courthouse. They spend $70k per year on scaffolding to protect the public from the building falling apart on pedestrians.
https://wgntv.com/news/wgn-investiga...t-to-demolish/
A lot of this is utter fucking hysteria, some of it is bullshit, but a bunch of it is justified.
The first building I looked at was the Henry Jackson Federal Building which is a 37 story sky scraper in downtown Seattle. I think that's likely a bit less cut and dry than Trackhead's example. According to the Googles that has 1900 fed employees in it.
Is the idea that the govt would sell the building to a private entity who would then rent to the feds?
just a random private entity
That list includes several agency HQ buildings, like HHS and HUD. Also includes the DC “Steam Distri Tunnels” and the federal buildings’ central heating plant. lol
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I'm trying to stay out of Polyass.Quote:
Originally Posted by shroom
<p>
</p>Quote:
Originally Posted by bodywhomper
<p>
But think of how much money the taxpayers will save if federal employees just wear jackets. Heating is for socialists.</p>
I have no doubt the cost of controlling adjacent properties is exponentially cheaper than the cost of probable upgrades needed to harden that facility against the very real threats a fed courthouse in downtown Chicago would face. I guess you could "let it roll" and risk another OKC or '93 WTC, but 800k/yr is probably a relative bargain compared to the cost of a successful attack.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trackhead
I like to flirtQuote:
Originally Posted by John_B
Quote:
Originally Posted by toast2266
Newsletter came out today - they said don't worry nothing is different for them and they are hiring 5 more "pro trail maintence workers" this summer. Time to bump up my annual donation.Quote:
Originally Posted by muted reborn
Super late to the timber discussion, but my anecdote on the matter comes from being around Montana during the 2000s.
Montana also used to have a pretty solid timber industry that employed a lot of people in the local economy, and paid fairly well for the times.
But Montana timber could ever stand against any competition over the long run. Its timber is farther from ports and markets than many other states, and has a far longer replacement rate than any forest along the west coast. Throw in international competition and the 2009 recession, and the industry simply withered. Tons of mills closed and hurt many local communities.
And it really never came back. Some have hoped for a resurgence, but the timber industry is just a footnote in today’s MT economy.
It’s mostly a niche gig up here now.
In a related issue, Federal appeals court just ruled that corner crossing is legal, at least in the 6 states in the court's jurisdiction. The case was in Wyoming. My source is paywalled. Look it up yourself.
In a related issue, Federal appeals court just ruled that corner crossing is legal, at least in the 6 states in the court's jurisdiction. The case was in Wyoming. The territorial jurisdiction of the Tenth Circuit includes the six states of Oklahoma, Kansas, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah, plus those portions of the Yellowstone National Park extending into Montana and Idaho.