Andy
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2008
- Messages
- 3,497
There is one problem with your reasoning when it comes to California. Despite the population of 35 million, there really is a lot of empty land in this state, much of it in private hands. The limiting factor here is not space, but water. There could well be thriving cities in the Coast Range mountains, for example, if a practical way could be found to bring water there. There would be a lot more land under cultivation, too, if there were more water.
Practical is a moving target. As more and more people move into an area, the raising taxes and related economic activity the follows the growth of a population, would make a system of providing water, more 'practical'.
And now, after the housing bubble burst, the average home price is once again comparable. High housing costs here were fueled mainly by speculation.
No offense, but you are nutz. I checked out a similar sized condo to my own.
My Condo, 800 sq ft, 2 bedroom, 1 - 1/2 bath, full basement. $425/mo mortgage.
California Condo, 780 sq ft, 2 bedroom, 1 bath, no basement. $1075/mo rent.
California Condo, 760 sq ft, 1 bedroom, 1 bath, no basement. $100K (double what I paid for mine.
And these were the more reasonable prices I could find. Some were smaller, one bedroom condos with prices nearly four times higher than what I paid for my Condo. The Condo right next to mine, has 3 bedrooms and a two car garage, and a full basement, plus a larger area, and sold for $100K, just like the condo in California above.
Trust me, the prices there are insane, and it's mainly due to open space laws, and public land laws.
Who should have been the owner of public lands, then? Homesteaders? The highest bidder? Who?
All of the above. It would be owned by the people of the state to which it belongs. Now if the people of Alaska want to give their state the right to take their own land away, that at least is a constitutional breach of their rights.
But the federal government has no constitutional right to take land, ever.
If drilling in ANWR is cost effective, then yes, of course it would have been done by now.
Are you suggesting it would not be cost effective? Because Canada has been expanding it's drilling operations in the are to the east of Alaska for many years. They seem to find it cost effective. Why would we not?
Because the federal government, in other words, you and I, are the owners of that land. Are you suggesting it be given away?
LOL Don't be silly. Technically speaking, we're owners of the social security "trust fund" too. And we're owners of PBS, yet they never play what I want. And we're owners of the national budget, deficit and the national debt. I can see how much control we have over those things. We own the FBI, and the EPA. We own the public school system. How much control do you see we have over all those things?
When the federal government "owns" something, then everyone owns it. If everyone owns it, then really... no one does. Because the politicians can always find someone somewhere that wants to do with object X whatever they wish to do with it.
Can you imagine 10 people jointly owning a car? What would happen? You can't use it because I might need it. Well I want it, so you can't have it. Well I have work, so neither of you can use it. Well I have work too, and I need to go shopping. And on and on and on. The end result is no one owns it, and no one uses it, and it's effectively useless to everyone.
Look at what happened in ANWR. They created ANWR specifically to explore it for Oil back in the.. 70s? early 80s? For 30 years now, they have all bickered back and fourth over who can and can't do what on the land. Instead of it being a benefit to the entire nation, it's a benefit to no one.
So, if that's what you consider "us owning the land", then yes, I'm for giving it away. What did the federal government do with the Louisiana purchase?
What did they do with all that? They gave it away. What happened? It became the back bone of American agricultural production. What would have happened if they had kept that land under federal control?
That's ANWR where we are NOT drilling for oil. That could be the entire mid-west if the government was in charge.