Endurance.Net Ridecamp Archives

I have a dumb question about this idea.? If a land sale is to replace another form of income for schools, what happens when the money runs out and the land is gone? Doesn't make any sense to me.

Maryanne

Cairo

On Feb 13, 2006, at 5:06 PM, rdcarrie@xxxxxxx wrote:

<<There has always been "land deals" by the FS.? However, the objective in the past has been to use the small isolated parcels as "trade bait" to increase the size/contiguity of the National Forests, usually resulting in a net increase in overall protected acreage.? For example, trading a small valuable piece of prime isolated "flat" land suitable for building/development/farming for a larger tract of mountainous, less desirable land contiguous to NF lands.? Sometimes the land acquired is in a flood plain or riparian area, where acquisition protects the watershed.? This is reasonable, prudent and good management.?

?

However, this is NOT the current case.? Notice that this is an outright sale to provide funds to replace an expiring bill that provides money for schools.

?

"The parcels are part of a nationwide sales package intended to raise about $800 million, according to government officials looking to replace an expiring 2000 law that provided milllions to rural school programs in areas where declining timber harvests had lowered school tax bases. The law, the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act, expires Sept. 30."

?

Selling the land outright results in the FS having less land parcels for negotiating with landowners to acquire larger contiguous areas and increase green spaces.?>>

?