Jeeper79 said:

---

TyHolden said:

---

sell off Yosemite

---

Because it's in California? Dumb…

---

It would never get sold. It would be a hilarious troll by Trump though.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/experience/national-parks/2024/12/31/wyoming-grand-teton-national-park-kelly-parcel/77357410007/

Is this what you're talking about? The state of Wyoming owned a parcel of land located within the borders of GTNP, and it was sold to the federal government.

Not wise perhaps to flood the market with federal land and drop the value of real estate assets.

Yukon Cornelius said:

---

Federal government owns an insane amount of land. It should be liquidated to pay off debt.

---

That would depend on how they do it.

The problem is that if they do that, it will probably be done in such a way to benefit the very wealthiest. You might very well need to buy 100 sections at a minimum. The last thing you are going to see is the government trying to maximize what they earn from it.

They would also need to start with land that is not in national parks and reserves.

Sell it to maximize price and start with the other parcels, and I might be in favor. But the way it would inevitably be done, it would be nothing more than a giveaway to the politically well-connected wealthy.

Old May Banker said:

---

No.

If lands were sold, they'd piss off the money and we'd have neither land or money.

---

Excellent point.

Any such selloff would also need to be done in tandem with serious austerity measures designed to actually reduce the national debt.

If the government were to sell all their land, it probably wouldn't do more than create a dent in one' year's deficit.

Starting with Teton? Arguably the best park we have? Gotta be a troll.

Not even Dave Ramsey would advise to sell assets when our deficit is still burning this heavily. Stop the bleeding.

Finally: if we DO ever start selling off parks: start with Niagra Falls. And then buy the land upriver and wait.

Forts, Ports, and 10 Square Miles:
Article I
Section 8 Enumerated Powers
Clause 17 Enclave Clause
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings

The Federal Government can only own the land if purchased with the consent of the State Legislature.

How many buildings, Army Posts, Naval Stations, National Parks, etc... were purchased with the consent of the State? How many were just taken?

I am not saying to get rid of National Parks. Just turn them over to the State.

Just fyi, the fed gov't just grew the park in OP by 640 acres. And that took years of legislation/suits/negotiations. They're not going to just flip and sell it all off now, LOL.

The feds own something like half of Wyoming which of course does tick off many of the locals, but whatever, that again is unlikely to change in any of our lifetimes.

Aggie Apotheosis said:

---

I'm seeing some talk that Grand Tetons National Park could/might be sold to private interests. Is that something y'all support?

---

No, I don't believe you are seeing some talk.

Knowing our govt, they'd sell it all to china.

No

However, maybe we should take Martha's Vineyard by eminent domain and return it to its natural state.

The best answer here is non-binary.

The federal government owns plenty of land that isn't really getting used that should be.

There is also plenty of land owned by the US government that should be completely off limits for as long as the Republic stands.

We should absolutely not sell off the entire Gran Tetons national park. We probably should sell off parts of it.

Aggie Apotheosis said:

---

I'm seeing some talk that Grand Tetons National Park could/might be sold to private interests. Is that something y'all support?

---

I agree with Sunray here.

What talk? Where? By whom? Link?

During Covid, the government closed the public restrooms and replaced them with port-a-potties.


Let that sink in.

State and Federal governments make horrible landlords.

Aggie Apotheosis said:

---

I'm seeing some talk that Grand Tetons National Park could/might be sold to private interests. Is that something y'all support?

---

What's the thinking behind this specifically related to Grand Tetons?
My initial impression is that of not supporting it. I love our National Parks.

TyHolden said:

---

sell off Yosemite

---

No.

Teslag said:

---

Much of the park was actually private land that was bought by John Rockefeller and then donated to be parkland. So no, that goes against the wishes of the original owner.

---

But did he get the money to buy the land from a USAID grant?




I kid, I kid

Balance the budget first.

Maybe not on the surface, but plenty of oil and minerals underneath.

I'd be ok with selling Hot Springs and the St Louis Arch. I don't think either should be national parks.

I think Pinnacles National Park is not that great. Maybe redesignate as a monument. Monuments are cheaper.

I've read that the Cayoga National Park in Ohio is not that spectacular. Maybe do something with it. I haven't been to all the national parks, so don't know if there are other ones to get rid of or reclassify.

Protect the great ones like Yosemite and Yellowstone.

Aggie Apotheosis said:

---

I'm seeing some talk that Grand Tetons National Park could/might be sold to private interests. Is that something y'all support?

---

Next up : Mount Rushmore... How about the Alamo...

Is this a troll? Hard to tell.

SVaggie84 said:

---

I'd be ok with selling Hot Springs and the St Louis Arch. I don't think either should be national parks.

I think Pinnacles National Park is not that great. Maybe redesignate as a monument. Monuments are cheaper.

I've read that the Cayoga National Park in Ohio is not that spectacular. Maybe do something with it. I haven't been to all the national parks, so don't know if there are other ones to get rid of or reclassify.

Protect the great ones like Yosemite and Yellowstone.

---

None of these are likely good binary decisions.

We should probably sell of parts of many parks, and completely sell very few of them.

How 'bout we sell California & New York instead?

Mookie said:

---

Knowing our govt, they'd sell it all to china.

---

I am guessing a tech / crypto Br-oligarch wants to set up his fortress of solitude and 10,000 of prime undeveloped isolated real estate is hard to find

I repeat It's a sign
the rich have run out of stuff to buy

Sq 17 said:

---

Mookie said:

---

Knowing our govt, they'd sell it all to china.

---

I am guessing a tech / crypto Br-oligarch wants to set up his fortress of solitude and 10,000 of prime undeveloped isolated real estate is hard to find

I repeat It's a sign
the rich have run out of stuff to buy

---

Scientology says "Hi!"

https://maps.app.goo.gl/WK7y2BXiANkLWV4T6


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trementina_Base

ts5641 said:

---

Aggie Apotheosis said:

---

I'm seeing some talk that Grand Tetons National Park could/might be sold to private interests. Is that something y'all support?

---

What's the thinking behind this specifically related to Grand Tetons?
My initial impression is that of not supporting it. I love our National Parks.

---

sounds like he and his friends confused several stories

https://apnews.com/article/wyoming-grand-teton-national-park-land-sale-de4f3cf27f8549c76b2d479e17dc3afc

https://www.jhnewsandguide.com/the_hole_scroll/wyoming-lawmakers-abandon-demand-for-grand-teton-park-other-federal-lands/article_bea09b06-e7fd-11ef-b3f9-6f749904b055.html

https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/after-decades-of-political-maneuvering-grand-teton-buys-wyoming-s-kelly-parcel-today/ar-AA1wI2Hc

Aggie Apotheosis said:

---

I'm seeing some talk that Grand Tetons National Park could/might be sold to private interests. Is that something y'all support?

---

You haven't "seen" Jack ****

In fact the federal government just bought a small piece of land adjacent to Grand Teton for the purpose of protecting the park from investors

EDIT - Old Army Ghost beat me to it

OP is full of crap

And I think a 1/3 of that purchase was funded by private funds gifted to the park society.

I'm not in favor of selling off National Parks.

I would be in favor of selling off some federal land.

But what really caught my eye is this:

Quote:

---

First, selling the land won't make a significant impact on our debt so take that off the table. All this will do is overcrowd what is left.

---

I see this argument all the time about any proposed cut and it is weak logic.

There is no one program cut that is going to bail us out of this mess. It's going to take cuts everywhere. Any one of which won't do much on its own.

Its like a 1,200 lb man saying "I might as well eat a whole cheesecake because cutting that out won't make any real difference"

Personally, I think we should sell off all national parks and drill for oil. Maybe all those fired federal employees can get jobs to keep unemployment low.

Nope.

Nope, the national parks are actually one of the things that I'm OK with my tax money going into. They are treasures and everyone should take some time to enjoy a few of them.

Glacier National Park was breathtaking, and I don't get awed easily.

McInnis 03 said:

---

Nope, the national parks are actually one of the things that I'm OK with my tax money going into. They are treasures and everyone should take some time to enjoy a few of them.

Glacier National Park was breathtaking, and I don't get awed easily.

---

. I don't ever go to these places. **** em. I want cheap oil and my taxes cut to 0.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Starting with Teton? Arguably the best park we have? Gotta be a troll.

Not even Dave Ramsey would advise to sell assets when our deficit is still burning this heavily. Stop the bleeding.

Finally: if we DO ever start selling off parks: start with Niagra Falls. And then buy the land upriver and wait.

---

That's funny.

Teslag said:

---

And I think a 1/3 of that purchase was funded by private funds gifted to the park society.

---

Yes, 68 million from the government, 32 million from private investors I think