Possibly stopped via Byrd Rule?
Printable View
Possibly stopped via Byrd Rule?
At this point an asshole like Mike Lee is just trying to sneak bs like this into the big shit pile of a bill, because they know the republicans have to do something, they’ve done absolutely nothing besides the Laken Riley act. And if they don’t get this through before the debt ceiling then they’ll really look like the morons they are because it’s doubtful they’ll get that through. Trump will demand they vote yes so scum bags like Lee see an opportunity to put crap like this in there. This has to be the worst bill to ever be considered since they’ve tried to pack all the crap into one instead of multiple bills. And if 3 democrats hadn’t died since January they wouldn’t have had the votes to get out of the house. There’s never ever been a congress that’s passed so little legislation at this point, and they have both branches of congress and the executive branch.
Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums
It would be ironic if Mike Lee was shot by some psycho leftist
You are right to be worried about these parcels but local governments and states will protest poor choices or recommend certain parcels to develop. I can't imagine a local government cutting off access to to their local trails by selling land with a trailhead on it. But it's certainly not worth the risk to sit back and accept this bullshit.Quote:
Originally Posted by singlesline
I can't even imagine putting affordbale housing on prime land near mansions, but is this even about affordbale housing?
i don't know what map you are looking at but all the maps I've seen are land that qualifies to be sold, not what land that will be sold.Quote:
Originally Posted by skysos
Yes, (for sale) is not correct. (qualifies to be sold) is more accurate and its a huge distinction. I just hope it plays out that if this passes very few of these parcels will actually end up for sale.
Ok, I saw Cody Townsends post about all this and I've had a change of heart. As usual he cuts through the bullshit and has smart perspectives about complex subjects.The LLC map he showed isnt super clear except that it I think shows a LOT of LCC and BCC could be sold in and around the ski areas. it's hard to see but it seems to include parts way high up off of Twins in Snowbird, which is ridiculous because I would LOVE to buy that parcel and build a shack near there and call it affordable housing for myself. Ski-in and ski-out for the common man - yes please. Thanks Cody for changing my mind.
The stated purpose of the land sale is to provide more housing. But from what I've read the bill does not provide much in the way of limitations to make sure housing is the actual use - in fact it provides a system for land to be sold or re-sold for other uses after 10 years. There is a separate part of the bill that will provide for more manditory resource extraction (oil and gas and logging).Quote:
Originally Posted by californiagrown
From what I've read things like hearings, debate and public input are not part of the sale process.Quote:
Originally Posted by muted reborn
3M acres out of hundreds of millions of acres of public land doesn't sound like a lot. But remember, someone is going to nominate the parcels for sale (haven't been able to learn who that is). If it comes from buyers or from billionaires looking for a hookup from their pals in politics they won't be nominating garbage land in the middle of nowhere. It will be the most desirable parcels with lakes, streams, views, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by skysos
Also, should this topic be moved to its own thread?
"Affordable" housing is a sickening smokescreen, if any housing is built on desirable parcels of land it's going to be market-price expensive. It's taking land forever out of the public domain, and whether it goes into trophy homes or resource extraction, the places that people with money are going to want to buy are places they can get to. Which means locking up the frontage areas between the road and the interior. Take every access issue we already have to deal with, where private land restricts access to trailheads, MTB trails, skiing, rivers, whatever, and multiply it by a large number.
https://www.publicdomain.media/p/uta...ds-pr-campaign
"PLPCO officials were also wary of featuring too many scenic vistas in their ad campaign. Commenting on a batch of photos and b-roll that Penna Powers compiled for the campaign, PLPCO official Dillon Hoyt wrote, “I'm held up thinking ‘how scenic is too scenic.’ Those are some great scenery shots, but I think they are what Redge wants us to avoid.”
In another instance, Hoyt was even more explicit. “I would like to use a video clip that is a little more desert and sagebrush than redrock. If the footage is too pretty and scenic people will start to agree that we should ‘conserve’ (meaning protect) these landscapes with PLR,” a reference to the BLM’s Public Lands Rule, which sought to put conservation on par with other public land uses. “We view ‘conserve’ as active land management,” he added."
This is a chance to do a Crazy Mountains / YC chckerboard clusterfuck on a massive scale. Block the access first, buy up the interior. Fuck this shit. Is has nothing to do with "affordable housing".
Do you guys think calling or emailing your senators really helps? I am willing to try. Just not sure which method works better. Do they really listen to hundreds of voicemails a day? Do the emails actually end up on their desks in DC?
Please note - Montana public lands are completely excluded from this. Presumably to try to get the support of the MT senators. A total dickbag move, IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom_Guardian
Yes it helps. Especially in a Red state. Call Senators in other states too if you visit often. Tell them you will have nothing to visit if the lands you came for get sold off.
Oh - and calling them is definitely the way to go. Give 'em hell, WG.
Call, [emoji637][emoji[emoji6[emoji640][emoji638]][emoji640][emoji6[emoji640][emoji638]]][emoji[emoji6[emoji640][emoji638]][emoji640][emoji6[emoji640][emoji638]]]%. BHA is also a great avenue. UT chapter is going to be bringing some heat to Mr. Lee’s desk next week. It’s big.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
theres no emoji on my rotary phone.
The public part of Alpine Meadows is on the list, Kiva Beach on Lake Tahoe, and the public part of Fallen Leaf Lk., as well as the public lands leased to Heavenly as previously mentioned.
Republicans can eat a bag of dicks.
Just here to say that this is worth getting pissed off over if you were not already furious. Even the possibility of selling public lands to fund tax breaks for the rich is absurd and rolling it back in the future would be difficult to impossible. Call your senators, donate if you can, and fight against this bullshit because this is a fight that we have to win.
Utah is so damn backwards. Mike Lee is a cunt. Make sure to get all your friends in red states to call their senators and tell them this cannot happen. Fuck this bullshit.
The senators/reps don't literally listen to voicemails or read the emails. But their staffers do listen to them (or actually answer the phone and talk to you) and catalogue the emails.Quote:
Originally Posted by Whiteroom_Guardian
They will prepare reports that say "we got 300 emails against X and 100 emails for it" and might include excerpts or summaries of the opinions being expressed. That's what the senator will actually see.
While organizations will give you form letters to send, its often a good idea to write your own. The form letters are easy to identify and discount, but a customized letter indicates you are a real constituent who took the time to write it. Doesn't have to be fancy or long or persuasive--just get your point across: "Don't sell off public lands, you know how much they are valued by your constituents". Allegedly calling is even better and honestly, probably takes just as long to voice a quick opinion as it does to type one out and fill out the form on their website.
FWIW, Sheehy's office form letter response indicated that he voted FOR a D-sponsored amendment that would have prevented the sale of lands. Daines' office sent a generic form response, but it looks like he was the only other R that voted for that amendment (which failed to pass). Zinke didn't send anything, but he's on record at least pushing back against the sale provisions.
Those three know that even though Montana land isn't on THIS list, people in Montana are going to be touchy about public lands. It absolutely helps to remind them that the voters care about an issue.
Jeff Hurd's response to my email:
Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns regarding public lands in Colorado. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.
Public lands are part of what makes Colorado, Colorado, and I take the obligation to protect them seriously. The first piece of legislation I introduced in Congress was H.R. 1125, the LOCAL Act, which permanently relocates the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) headquarters within our district in Grand Junction. I strongly believe that the people that are tasked with managing our federal lands should be located in the west, with the vast majority of our public lands.
I also believe that the commitment we make to protect our public lands does not preclude the responsible development of our abundant energy and mineral resources, grazing access, and recreation. In addition, active management of our public lands can help proactively deter risks from natural disasters such as wildfires. That is why I also introduced H.R. 1997, the Productive Public Lands Act, on March 10, 2025. This legislation requires the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to reissue nine Biden era Resource Management Plans (RMPs) which prevented access to lands in Colorado, Wyoming, Oregon, and Montana. According to the BLM's own mission which states, "Congress tasked the BLM with a mandate of managing public lands for a variety of uses such as energy development, livestock grazing, recreation, and timber harvesting while ensuring natural, cultural, and historic resources are maintained for present and future use." This legislation would hold the BLM to their own mission.
While we may not see eye-to-eye on this issue, rest assured that I will keep your thoughts in mind should related legislation concerning our public lands comes to a vote on the House Floor.
If you call every day, does that count each time (assuming they take down your info)? Or does it count for just one yea or nay?Quote:
Originally Posted by singlesline
<p>
Backcountry Hunters and Anglers is organizing a day of action on June 25th to flood the lines with 25,000 calls to senate offices opposing the sale of public lands. More info on the BHA website (backcountryhunters.org) If you feel inclined to participate, I urge you to call versus email (or do both!). The BHA action site makes it very easy to email, and you have to look a bit for the phone option (look for the telephone icon). It gives you your reps contact info and an easy script to use. </p>
<p>
Five calls (5calls.org) is another helpful resource for making calling your representative easy. </p>
<p>
Anecdotally, I've heard that changing the scripts a bit and making them personal to you can be more effective. Who knows. But don't let perfection be the enemy of progress. Whatever you do, call and let your rep know what you think!</p>
Could this all be a distracting tactic? What else is part of SERNA or whatever the acronym for the BBB.
As someone who’s done this. I can tell you for a fact that the staffers get sick and tired of you calling every day. But hey that’s what you get when you go work for these scumbags. If one of Senator Lee’s staffers looses their mind I’m sure they come looking for meQuote:
Originally Posted by The SnowShow;[emoji[emoji6[emoji640
Went from terminating leases on public lands to terminating public lands.
That is very possible. Saw this post recently, someone loaded the entire bill into Chat GPT and asked for a summary. GPT called it authoritarianism wrapped in bureaucratic language" and didn't really mention the economic impacts of the bill.Quote:
Originally Posted by raisingarizona13
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DLDaBuOvzUw/
It has all sorts of shit like allowing the executive to ignore the courts and worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by evdog
WRT the public land sale proposals, obviously we all need to call and email. I'm begging my less political friends and acquaintances to do so as well. Especially if you have friends from Montana and the other places where the Sens and Reps might actually listen. Our rep, Amodei, is the one who put it in the house bill, so I'm not expecting him to reverse course but I still call.
Ahh, so a distractor that will get the general public to light up their torches and then storm the capitol over is probably very likely. The public land grab could be like a ski resort expansion proposal where theres always a controversial component thats put in there to basically let go and let the public feel like they got a win all the while the ski resort gets the things that theyre really after. My gut is currently telling me that the land grab isnt going to actually happen but the bill has much more concerning and detrimantal aspects about it that theyd rather us not be focussed on.Quote:
Originally Posted by muted reborn
If enough people call and say I won't ever vote for you again if this goes ahead, he might change course. These assholes only thing of themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by climberevan
There is so much bullshit hidden in the BBB that some of it will certainly get through--like Iranian missiles. That's the whole point of omnibus bills--attach so much garbage to must pass legislation that finding all of it, let alone fighting all of it, is impossible.
That’s status quo for our government forever and always.
<p>
Looks like Byrd Rule might be coming in to play.</p>
The fact that the state of WA and my home state of MT were excluded (looking at the maps) is quite laughable. A bare-faced attempt to buy support, although in the case of these two states they are trying to avoid a larger public outcry against the bill.
It’s not like they had the votes from WA reps anyway, but the MT exclusion does show in-part their politicians fear of that branch of America.
Ducks Unlimited, Rocky Mtn Elk Foundation, and just about any public-land access loving group would shit a brick if their lands in MT and WA were threatened. There’s a special level of environmental jihad you risk with those states…
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Those states should still be up in arms over this. If the first sale gets completed as intended there will be MT and WA lands in the next one.
https://seinquotes.com/images/gifs/g...633d0cd2f9.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by evdog
If there is an issue that proves people don't know what the fuck they are voting for this is it.
Too much Joe Rogan. Too much propaganda. It is exasperating.
But now we can hold hands and fight the oligarchs together, at least on this one, easy to see through the bullshit issue. Kumbaya. I turn my purity test meter off.
This is that important.
Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk
"Trump Administration to End Protections for 58 Million Acres of National Forests"
Another headache to deal with and figure out how consequential it will or will not be. Gifted article below:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/23/c...smid=url-share
Note that the Byrd rule limits what can make it into Senate Budget Reconciliation bills, so unless Republicans decide to ignore the Senate Parliamentarian and essentially destroy the filibuster, the sale of pkublic lands is out of the bill:
The fifth set of Byrd droppings is out
Dems win on the sale of public lands: Rs may not sell of our public lands!
Other huge victories in this area around making oil and gas leasing, mining, pay-to-play for oil and gas exports, and NEPA compliance
ENR and Senate Budget Dem staff crushed it
https://bsky.app/profile/bbkogan.bsk.../3lsd6urfxfs2m