Whig stance on selling public lands?

Of course, you have to understand that in 1844 the federal government held far, far more public land than it does today and was in the business of selling it off for farm land, mining operations, town charters, and so on.

Today the US still holds a lot of public land, but now the majority is National Parks and Wilderness Refuges. There is also plenty of public land that is used for agricultural purposes under the control of states or the feds, and there is still some land owned by the gov going unused and not protecting any important ecosystems or species.

If you are wondering if the selling of public land or assets en masse as a way to pay down the debt is something the Modern Whigs are looking into, it's certainly not. Whigs are committed to protecting and conserving the natural beauty (and biodiversity) of our country. The calls from the likes Palin to do things like sell off national parkland for commercial development and sell off our gold reserves is fairly frightening to me. It is lazy, short-sighted economic policy at best.

Obviously though, we should have some sort of position on how to manage public land. My dad is a scientist who works in this field for the government - land management. We have discussed local vs. federal management programs and he says that local management is not necessarily better, since state and county governments aren't immune from doing stupid things...

Simple reply: we cannot expect to have answers to everything. In fact, our mission is more to design methods of finding solutions, to teach to lead, rather than outright lead. Our Associations will be our "classrooms" eventually.

So to invoke the six step creative problem solving algorithm;

CPS Step 1: Define the problem. Very explicity from all points of view.

P.S. personal note: as a hunter/outdoorsman who is land poor, I love state and federal forests!! They are a national/state resource.

GENE: After discussion with my friends, it seems that you're avoiding taking a solid stand on this issue. Therefore, we pose the question: If you're not going to take a stand on whether or not to sell public lands, then how can we as voters vote for you, not knowing where you stand? Alternatively, if you DO have a stand, please spell it out explicitly so that we know.

JK SPAETH: "If you are wondering if the selling of public land or assets en masse as a way to pay down the debt is something the Modern Whigs are looking into, it's certainly not." Sounds good... but please define "en masse." It's a relative term and politicians in the two major parties make many of their messes by broad interpretations of broadly termed things, such as this.

"Whigs are committed to protecting and conserving the natural beauty (and biodiversity) of our country." Good.

"Obviously though, we should have some sort of position..." exactly what we're interested in hearing about, your positions.

"We have discussed local vs. federal management programs and he says that local management is not necessarily better, since state and county governments aren't immune from doing stupid things..." DOES THIS MEAN that you advocate the federal government holding the powers of land oversight, ownership, determination of use and say over sale or retention of public lands over state governments having these powers?

Seems to me that the whole point of the Modern Whigs is not to have inflexible stands, but to look for solutions to problems. What is the specific problem you're concerned about?

The sale of public lands. It's an idea that's been floated as a possible solution for various economic problems, but we feel that this will simply facilitate the rich buying up public lands and having license to do whatever they want to them, while cutting off public access to and usage of those lands. This also happens to be a Whig stance from the past and, while it has been pointed out above that that was then and this is now, we'd like to know clearly if, to what extent and under what circumstances the MWP supports sales of public lands. For us, this is a very important issue as we consider whether or not to support this party.

Friends, I have been following the MWP with interest for several months now, and have been discussing it with a wide variety of friends here in Michigan. While I remain enthusiastic, one thing that concerns many of us, and which I have seen discussed at length by other members on the forums but with no satisfactory answer, is that when very specific questions are asked (for example, my question above about the sale of public lands), answers offered seem not to answer the question at all. Case in point:

"Seems to me that the whole point of the Modern Whigs is not to have inflexible stands, but to look for solutions to problems."

On the one hand, I recognize and value the strength of this in being able, for example, to bring pro-abortion, pro-life, and moderate stance people together in one party that is focused on finding concrete, logical solutions to real problems.

On the other hand, not taking a stand is still not taking a stand, and if you have not stands to run on, how do you intend to run at all? You can't just expect to get up in front of the American People and, when asked "do you support the sale of public lands" simply respond, "well, we're discussing that. It depends on what works." The People want you to say, "We believe that 1) we should sell public lands (if/when/because/unless/etc) X" or 2) "we should not support the sale of public lands (if/when/because/unless/etc) Y"

Seems to me that your question is way too general to allow for a specific stand. Maybe if you could limit the question a bit, instead of expecting the MWP to anticipate every nuance your question might have.

For example, are you talking about National Parks and Forests, or closed military bases and other obsolete government buildings? As was pointed out before, the part of the 1844 platform you referred to was specifically aimed at the large tracts of wilderness that the government owned and wanted to open up for development. That's not the case anywhere in this country these days, so it's hard to see what relevance your concerns actually have to today's MWP.

When was the last time ANY political candidate was asked "do you support the sale of public lands"? Put that way, it just doesn't seem like an issue.

This is a perfect topic for our National Associations which are going to be finally launched this month after years of crafting. This is perfect for the National Associations because while this is an important topic, it is not a "popular" topic, by that I mean it is not a topic that comes up a lot.

I do not honestly know enough myself and have not researched about the sale of public lands. The Whig in me and common sense would dictate that public lands should not be sold without proper public hearings and comment periods. Personally, with my limited knowledge on the subject I would like to see the public lands only sold with approval of voters via a referendum if possible.

In regards to distribution of sale of public lands the money the profit should be distributed equally to citizens. Although we need to be careful about selling our public lands as we must protect our environment and be very careful about who the land is sold to, the land should not be sold at cheap prices just for a corporation or private individual to benefit from without proper compensation to the American citizens. I imagine that in the National Associations, all of these issues will come ub and be addressed using common sense first and protection of the environment and public first and foremost.

Is there any profit while we're still so much in debt?

The People want you to say, "We believe that 1) we should sell public lands (if/when/because/unless/etc) X" or 2) "we should not support the sale of public lands (if/when/because/unless/etc) Y"

I believe this statement is both true and false. The truth that "The People want you to say", I believe comes from many years of the politicians saying what they believe the majority of the people want to hear so that politician can win the election.

From my perspective, The People want a voice and a representative to convey that voice. The Whigs don't take a stand on any topic because as statesmen/women and representatives, it is not our opinion of the topic that really matters, it is the opinion of the people that we represent that matters. I have no doubt that if a position is needed, we could produce one but in order to need a position a question must be presented. If a question is presented then a stance on that issue most likely was already formed by the individual who presented the question.

With that being said, you questioned the sales of public land. You and your friends are part of that public, therefore what is your feelings on that question and are there enough people that feel the same way? This is a question for "We the People" not some political organization to decide. The Whigs just help mediate the discussions and put the plan into action.

My opinion is that the local and state people that would be affected by the sale of federal land should have some weighted say in the sale of that land. After all, those are the people that will be affected by that sale.

Thanks for all of your responses. I've been away for a while and am only just now seeing a few of them. I'll pass them on to the people who wanted to know.

While I'm not registered in any party, I'll overwhelmingly state as an American I can not allow public lands being sold to pay down the debt.

The land is a finite resource, and can not be given away as is the gold here in Nevada. The gold in Nevada is given away to foreign companies for so little return it should sicken anyone who knows the details.

Public land, BLM land out here is a resource Not to be sold without putting it to a vote by the People of the State it is in. Period. A recent 'land grab' outside and to the East of Reno was the largest in history. Where was the discussion?

Private or not, these things mean more out West, and I will fight to keep these resources. Only careful consideration of what to do with them must take place.

The notion of putting a price on God knows everything is the most stupid and inane piece of claptrap to come from those advocating such.