I really enjoyed this post. People have such strong emotions wrapped up in questions of land ownership and land use in the West. Thank you, Ryder, for writing in a way that can speak to both poles in the debate.
The federal/suwa perspective that in practice opposes all land sales or conveyances to the state fails to grapple with the difficulty of the federal permitting process. Rural under-resourced counties face an enormous burden anytime they attempt even basic government functions on public land, from water purification, to road construction, to trash clean up.
It’s also important for critics of federal ownership to grapple with questions of species and wilderness preservation. Is the state prepared to make an indefinite commitment to conservation? I’d argue state agencies like UDWR do a better job than nearly anywhere of managing and conserving ecosystems. But Utah also has a culture of growth. And growth has trade offs.
There are legitimate concerns about municipal revenue in rural counties with a high proportion of federal land, but this doesn’t necessarily account for the costs borne by the federal government to manage these lands—costs that would otherwise have to be borne by municipal governments. Chuck Marohn of Strong Towns has also documented the “growth ponzi scheme” which consists of low-density development at the urban periphery that can’t pay for its own infrastructure costs over the long-term. This implies that enabling further privatization and potential development wouldn't necessarily put rural counties in a better fiscal situation. Additionally, in an alternate universe where Utah had no federally-managed public lands, future growth would already be constrained by the topography and lack of water—factors that already concentrate most development and population growth in Utah along the Wasatch Front. In all likelihood, given the libertarian ethos of the Utah state legislature, giving control of federally-managed public lands to the state would result (as Ryder discusses) in mass privatization that would deprive citizens of the state, and nation, of easy access to open space while also, most likely, not contributing significantly to lowering the cost of housing in Utah (the fix for that can only come from zoning reform, ending the monopoly of detached single-family homes). The cost of housing and strain on rural counties’ fiscal stability are, in my opinion, merely convenient pretexts for Republicans to sell off public lands. The very idea of land held in common is anathema to this far-right party, even though it is, at root, a policy that is as democratic as it is American. Jonathan Thompson, who publishes the wonderful newsletter The Land Desk, discussed this very topic a few days ago in an accessible and deeply knowledgeable way https://www.landdesk.org/p/when-disposing-of-public-land-isnt?publication_id=258189&post_id=163728202&isFreemail=true&r=3ycrp&triedRedirect=true
The cost of housing in Utah has increased EXTREMELY since my youth. I would like to see more land available for people to build homes on. I don't think development for those reasons is a bad thing - the possibility of home ownership should be available to everyone. And, yes, I believe that some lands - like national parks - should still be preserved.
I really enjoyed this post. People have such strong emotions wrapped up in questions of land ownership and land use in the West. Thank you, Ryder, for writing in a way that can speak to both poles in the debate.
The federal/suwa perspective that in practice opposes all land sales or conveyances to the state fails to grapple with the difficulty of the federal permitting process. Rural under-resourced counties face an enormous burden anytime they attempt even basic government functions on public land, from water purification, to road construction, to trash clean up.
It’s also important for critics of federal ownership to grapple with questions of species and wilderness preservation. Is the state prepared to make an indefinite commitment to conservation? I’d argue state agencies like UDWR do a better job than nearly anywhere of managing and conserving ecosystems. But Utah also has a culture of growth. And growth has trade offs.
There are legitimate concerns about municipal revenue in rural counties with a high proportion of federal land, but this doesn’t necessarily account for the costs borne by the federal government to manage these lands—costs that would otherwise have to be borne by municipal governments. Chuck Marohn of Strong Towns has also documented the “growth ponzi scheme” which consists of low-density development at the urban periphery that can’t pay for its own infrastructure costs over the long-term. This implies that enabling further privatization and potential development wouldn't necessarily put rural counties in a better fiscal situation. Additionally, in an alternate universe where Utah had no federally-managed public lands, future growth would already be constrained by the topography and lack of water—factors that already concentrate most development and population growth in Utah along the Wasatch Front. In all likelihood, given the libertarian ethos of the Utah state legislature, giving control of federally-managed public lands to the state would result (as Ryder discusses) in mass privatization that would deprive citizens of the state, and nation, of easy access to open space while also, most likely, not contributing significantly to lowering the cost of housing in Utah (the fix for that can only come from zoning reform, ending the monopoly of detached single-family homes). The cost of housing and strain on rural counties’ fiscal stability are, in my opinion, merely convenient pretexts for Republicans to sell off public lands. The very idea of land held in common is anathema to this far-right party, even though it is, at root, a policy that is as democratic as it is American. Jonathan Thompson, who publishes the wonderful newsletter The Land Desk, discussed this very topic a few days ago in an accessible and deeply knowledgeable way https://www.landdesk.org/p/when-disposing-of-public-land-isnt?publication_id=258189&post_id=163728202&isFreemail=true&r=3ycrp&triedRedirect=true
The cost of housing in Utah has increased EXTREMELY since my youth. I would like to see more land available for people to build homes on. I don't think development for those reasons is a bad thing - the possibility of home ownership should be available to everyone. And, yes, I believe that some lands - like national parks - should still be preserved.
Important discussion.