Thursday, July 10, 2008
The sweltering days of July send the mind toward the cool altitudes of the Rocky Mountains. With this mind, I recently picked up at second-hand store a copy of Frank Clifford’s “Backbone of the World,” in which the author travels to rural locations along the Continental Divide. A common theme? Property owners’ complaints about too much federal control and distrust of public access in an area that is increasingly popular for recreation. So much for a pleasant read without thinking about land use law!
In the news is the controversial decision of the Forest Service to allow the Plum Creek Timber Co., the nation’s largest private landowner, to have wider easement rights over roads through federal land in Montana, which often is set in a maddening checkerboard pattern. The result may be a boom in residential development in western Montana, with concomitant threats to natural resources and local economics.
It is established federal policy to retain the federal lands that make up much of the area between the front ranges of the Rockies and the high ranges of the Pacific states. But one has to think that it was a mistake to have the federal government hold on to so much of arid West, and at the same time allow a wide range of private interest on such land –- through grazing and timber access, as well as through easements across the checkerboard. How much more sense it would have been to sell to private owners much land that is not Yellowstone or the Grand Canyon (and force them to internalize harms to the land), and then bar private interests in the remaining federal lands in remote places. We might have avoided bizarre quandaries such as the federal subsidization of below-cost timber sales and hedge fund managers driving their Range Rovers across federal easements.
[Comments must be approved and thus take some time to appear online.]
This blog is an Amazon affiliate. Help support Land Use Prof Blog by making purchases through Amazon links on this site at no cost to you.
- Stephen Miller on New Arkansas law requires local governments to pay for a "takings" where certain "regulatory programs" reduce FMV by at least 20 percent
- Josh Galperin on New Arkansas law requires local governments to pay for a "takings" where certain "regulatory programs" reduce FMV by at least 20 percent
- Jesse Richardson on New Arkansas law requires local governments to pay for a "takings" where certain "regulatory programs" reduce FMV by at least 20 percent
- Jamie Baker Roskie on Uber Goes to the State House Seeking Preemption of Local Government Control
- Stephen R. Miller on Why are building inspectors so often on the take?
- Can UberPOOL Make Carpooling Cool?
- Are Earth Day cookies an endangered species?
- Fordham Urban Law Center's Sharing Economy | Sharing City Conference - April 24
- Land Use, Telescopes and Sacred Land in Paradise
- Tekle on Percent-for-Art Ordinances