BLM selling land?

[Bayless]

k so I heard from someone that mines up By Ransburg (past Cal City) that Blm is either thinking or currently trying to sell land to foreign companies or countries (they would use it for agriculture? and mining) so the state can make a quick buck. Anyone else here about this. I was told supposedly theres going to be a vote on it this month and it doesn't look promising.

[SPONSOR]

Membership in the largest desert racing community has its advantages - Participate in Forum Discussions - Send and Receive Private Messages - Maintain Public Photo Albums - Access to Groups - User Profile in our Social Network - Increased Access to more Sub Forums - Reduced Online Advertisements Join our community today

[Ol' Curmudgeon]

First, BLM is a federal, not state, agency. It's been selling, leasing, trading or giving away land for years, except to the OHV community.

Lots of foreign mining interests are operating in the US today, many bought up US mining interests.

Could well be a mining concern is purchasing a mineral claim through the patent land process.

Agriculture? What would be the water source?

[Bayless]

not sure what the water source would be.... maybe they would tap into a well??? but that wouldn't be enough water.. I just heard this from someone when i was up in Ransburg 2 weeks ago.
Didn't know if this was something new or if it could be a threat somehow to the trails that are open for riding. Thanks for correcting me on BLM being federal and not a state agency.. I should know better.

[Bro_Gill]

California will be forced to sell state assets, including land, here shortly. They did this a couple years ago with many developed parcels that were not being used. Now they will go to the undeveloped land. As to who buys it, it is a free country and foreign investors are not excluded, but there is nothing that stop any of us from bidding on these lands when they go up for sale. Don't worry though, they will be sold prior to any public bidding to cash happy environmental fronts like The Nature Conservancy at bargain prices and an election support handshake.

[inyonative]

put your money where your mouth is!


http://losangeles.craigslist.org/ant...064546609.html

[Wayne_Nosala]

Having been to many BLM meetings in the ridgecrest district, I can possibly shed some light on this

First off, BLM owns many fragmented parcels of land in the county I reside, Kern,

There are a few staff dedicated to dealing with real estate issues within the district office, Im sure
there are the same with Barstow, El centro ETC

The lands I have seen come up for competitive bids are the fragmented ones, particularly
in the areas we dont have designated routes in the first place, There are a couple of
acres that are a weird shape that are walking distance from my very residence, to be honest
its not a desirable place to develop any thing

I can tell ya from first hand watching things, BLM is not selling off large chucks of OHV
property (Aside from the just released FEIS for JV, in that case BLM had no say in the
transfer of those lands)

Back to real estate, The things that are being eyed are parcels for renewable development
and it is keeping the real estate staff in the BLM offices quite busy

its quite doubtful these fragments will be used for development for strip malls or housing
developments. Possibly some small mining leases, But not enough to effect our sport

Once developers find out how difficult it is to develop or mine mostly class L lands (Limited use)
they usually move on to more private

There are some MET towers in some ACEC areas I have seen, these have been brought up
at meetings I have attended, I the general consensus these lands will never be leased or sold to
wind interests

Aside from JV issue, our biggest battles ahead will be renewables, Not from the projects themselves,
but the habitat mitigation offsets that can be granted due to ESA laws to the tune of reduculus ratios, In some
cases 25-1, That translates for every acre disturbed for for development, 25 acres could be closed to human
use of any kind in the really near future

Wayne

[Ol' Curmudgeon]

Every day, Agenda 21 conspiracy theorists gain more credence.

[Wayne_Nosala]

California will be forced to sell state assets, including land, here shortly. They did this a couple years ago with many developed parcels that were not being used. Now they will go to the undeveloped land. As to who buys it, it is a free country and foreign investors are not excluded, but there is nothing that stop any of us from bidding on these lands when they go up for sale. Don't worry though, they will be sold prior to any public bidding to cash happy environmental fronts like The Nature Conservancy at bargain prices and an election support handshake.

Martin, I have been always ignored by certain leadership entities to entertain trade some
state property for the ever growing debt this state owes us from stealing from the OHV fund

I think we are in the area of $150 mil they owe us now, Let them give us lands or do some swapping
for what they have stolen from us

Wayne

[Bro_Gill]

Wayne- I agree. I have been eyeing teh area south and west of Needles for a couple years now. Out of the Majave Preserve, to hilly and rocky for tortoise, Away from development and future development, etc... Should be included in a 1:1 swap for every acre the military gets out of Johnson Valley. As far as the State goes, apparently the current 'purchase' price of land from the feds is just shy of 3000 bucks an acre as set forth by the Bright Star buy just recently to offset their development. At that price, we would be better off buying private land. We won't even build on it! A win all the way around. The environmentalists should give us a hug.

As far as the BLM or any federal entity selling off land, what Wayne is refering to is called the inholdings land. It is federal land that is surrounded by private land, is smaller than 20 acres, and doesn't offer any special needs for preservation or protection of targeted things like species. The Gov't generally likes to swap these lands for other private inholding land within their designated boundries to make management easier, lands contiguous, etc... Usually the gov't will swap your 3 acres for their 1 acre, but their 1 acre will be closer to developed areas, helping you out down the road.

[Jerry Zaiden]

http://www.blm.gov/ca/st/en/prog/lan...and_sales.html