Who Are the True Owners of Land in America?

by Jack

The United States government has direct ownership of almost 650 million acres of land (2.63 million square kilometers) – roughly 30% of our total land mass. You might say, well that’s not really government land… it’s our land, because we’re the government.   Technically speaking that may be true!  After all you helped pay for all this government land.   But, try walking on posted federal property sometime and let’s see how your theory holds up in court.  Be prepared to carry some fine money.

Arguably, one could say then they (the gov) own 100% of all the land in the US, we don’t really own anything!   And that’s closer to the truth.  Don’t believe me? Try NOT paying your property tax, the government will swoop in and take it away from you. That fact they can take it away implies they own it, not you. You just have a contractural agreement to rent it (via paying taxes) and it will never be yours, because there’s never going to come a time when you are allowed to assume full ownership (stop paying taxes).  Only American Indians are afforded the privilage of sovereign ownership and just like royalty, they are actually paid to live on their land.   It’s a great gig if you can get it. 

Seems to me that in a rational and just world there should come a time in an ordinary person’s life that we’ve paid our fair share in house taxes and we can finally take a break.   It just doesn’t seem right that an elderly coupled could be forced out of their home of 60 plus years because their paltry retirement income isn’t enough to pay the taxes on their house.   Of course when that happens we (younger taxpayers) pay even more to place them in a rest-home or in expensive low income housing .   That’s the opposite of smart.

This is why I think there should come a point in every person’s life where we finally get to stop paying our taxes on our treasured home, so we can focus on enjoying it without fear of losing it to the tax man.   Of course this is way too rational for our government to ever adopt, especially since they spend our tax money faster than it comes in.   They’ll never be in a position to let you opt out at any age.   We’re just stuck and the answer to the original question is…it’s the government - the same could be said of the old Soviet Union.  Have a nice day Comrade.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Who Are the True Owners of Land in America?

  1. Peggy says:

    So, in other words we are just renters and the government is the landlord. Hum, never thought of it that way before, but I do believe you are right.

    I remembered reading an article years ago that had a map showing just how much the federal government claims ownership of state’s land. The map is included in one of the below links.

    I did find a couple of article about states suing the feds to get their land back and one about a rebellion back in the 1970-80s.

    AFP Letter of Support for Sen. Inhofe’s & Rep. Black’s Federal Land Freedom Act:

    http://americansforprosperity.org/legislativealerts/afp-letter-of-support-for-sen-inhofes-rep-blacks-federal-land-freedom-act/

    Western states demand feds return public land amid clamor for more drilling:

    Several Western states, fed up with a federal government some claim is locking down public land against oil drilling, are demanding Washington return millions of acres to state control.

    The pleas mark a new front in the battle over states’ rights, and one state has already codified its demand into law.

    Utah Gov. Gary R. Herbert, a Republican, signed a law several days ago that asks the federal government to return 20 million acres, which could be used to develop oil and other natural resources to bolster the state economy.

    Republican state Rep. Ken Ivory said Tuesday the land is worth trillions of dollars in oil and mineral resources, which would be developed in a responsible way.

    “The first thing you do is protect the national park, monuments and other open space,” he told FoxNews.com. Then, he said, lawmakers would create a so-called “public lands commission” managed by the state — that would hold sway over the natural resources buried in the rock.

    Ivory pointed to North Dakota, where the recent development of oil and natural gas has resulted in a booming state economy, with one of the country’s lowest unemployment rates.

    A law similar to Utah’s passed the Arizona Senate last month, and lawmakers in Colorado, Idaho, Montana and New Mexico reportedly are preparing similar legislation for next year.

    The Utah law also has backing from the state’s GOP delegation on Capitol Hill.
    “This issue is as much about state sovereignty as it is about state economy,” U.S. Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, said in a written statement. “Utah can manage its priorities … much more efficiently than the federal government. But the state needs resources, and Washington is standing in the way.”

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/27/western-states-demand-feds-give-them-public-land-access-to-revive-economy/#ixzz2V6ey8nFy

    From Wikipedia:
    State sovereignty resolutions (“10th Amendment resolutions”) [edit]
    These resolutions attempt to reassert state sovereignty over any area not listed among the “enumerated powers” (i.e., any law based on an “expansive reading” of the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, or the Supremacy Clause would, according to this resolution, be invalid).
    During 2009, “state sovereignty resolutions” or “10th Amendment Resolutions” were introduced in the legislatures of 37 states; in seven states the resolutions passed (Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Tennessee).
    During 2010, resolutions were introduced or reintroduced into the legislatures of 21 states; the resolution passed in seven states (Alabama, Arizona, Kansas, Nebraska, South Carolina, Utah, and Wyoming).[9][10]
    A state sovereignty resolution has been prefiled for the upcoming 2011 session of the Texas Legislature (a prior 2009 resolution did not pass).

    State sovereignty bills (“10th Amendment Bills”) [edit]
    A “State Sovereignty Bill” is one step beyond a State Sovereignty Resolution. The bill would mandate action against what the state legislature perceives as unconstitutional federal legislation.
    During 2010, such legislation was introduced in six states (Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma); however, none made it past the introductory stage.[11]

    “Federal land” legislation [edit]
    As of February 2010, legislators in Utah have introduced legislation to allow the use of eminent domain on federal land. Rep. Christopher Herrod has introduced the bill in a state where the federal government controls over 60% of the land. The effort has the full support of Republican Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, who would have to defend the law. The proposal includes setting aside $3 million for legal defense.[39][40]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

    Sagebrush Rebels (Rebellion)

    The sagebrush rebels attempted to influence environmental policy in the American West during the 1970s and 1980s, surviving into the 21st century in public lands states (generally, the 13 western states where federal land holdings include 30% to more than 50% of a state’s area), and surviving in organized groups pressuring public lands policy makers, especially for grazing of sheep and cattle on public lands, and for mineral extraction policies.

    An extension of the older controversy of state vs. federal powers, Sagebrush Rebels wanted the federal government to give more control of federally owned Western lands to state and local authorities. This was meant to increase the growth of Western economies. Republican Ronald Reagan declared himself a sagebrush rebel in an August 1980 campaign speech in Salt Lake City, telling the crowd, “I happen to be one who cheers and supports the Sagebrush Rebellion. Count me in as a rebel.”[1] Reagan was faced with opposition with conservation organizations. This struggle persists today after changing form, with the “wise use movement” in 1988. George H. W. Bush helped work around restrictive environmental laws to help mining, ranching, and real estate developing industries that created jobs in the states.

    The term “Sagebrush Rebellion” was coined during fights over designation of National Wilderness lands, especially in Western states, and especially after the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) conducted required surveys of plots of public lands of at least 5,000 acres (20 km²) that were unroaded, after 1972, for potential designation as part of the National Wilderness Preservation System.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagebrush_rebels

    Wouldn’t it be wonderful for states to have control of their own land back if they want it. Just think of what’s going on in No. Dakota and all of the jobs and its booming economy.

  2. Tina says:

    Jack when you consider that most Americans also have a mortgage, a large percentage of those mortgages are bought up by Fannie Mae, and since the housing crash and the Dodd/Frank banking fix government has even more power it’s beginning to look like American is a big fiefdom and we the working class just slaves to the elites in power. There is a way to fix it but unless we vote for a congress that will create a smarter, smaller federal government it won’t happen. See “What to Do With Fannie and Freddie,” by Alex J.Pollock:

    The biggest question with the $10 trillion U.S. housing finance sector is what to do with the government-sponsored enterprises that have recently attained even greater monopoly power. Here’s a way to move beyond the political stalemate.
    Compared to other countries, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were and are unique features of U.S. housing finance. They once made U.S. housing finance, according to their own pre-crisis publicity, “the envy of the world.” In those days, Fannie and Freddie were accustomed to being the stars and darlings of both Washington and Wall Street — or more precisely, being a darling of Washington made them a star of Wall Street. Fannie in particular was also a greatly feared bullyboy both in Washington and on Wall Street, and most politicians and bankers were afraid to cross or offend it.
    Perhaps drunk with power, hubris, the free use of the U.S. Treasury’s credit, and nearly unlimited command of other people’s money — domestic and international — Fannie and Freddie became major perpetrators of the housing bubble, running up the leverage of the housing finance sector, inflating house prices, escalating systemic risk, and making boodles of bad loans and investments.
    As in a Greek tragedy, their hubris led to humiliation. Both went utterly broke, greatly embarrassing their political cheerleaders and allies, including Senator Chris Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank (the chairmen of the respective congressional banking committees), but their taste for using other people’s money did not abate. They lost all the profits they had made for the previous 35 years, plus another $150 billion. These enormous losses were foisted on the innocent public, while the government made sure that their creditors, domestic and foreign, were paid every penny on time. Large additional losses to the public are the deadweight bureaucratic costs of the Dodd-Frank Act, sponsored by the aforementioned former political cheerleaders.
    Now the housing crisis that Fannie and Freddie made so much worse has finally ended, and the housing cycle is turning back up, as cycles inevitably do. In the meantime, the U.S. housing finance sector has become a largely nationalized and socialized “government housing complex.” As the central part of that complex, Fannie and Freddie — now owned by, run by, and simply part of the government — have attained even greater monopoly power and an even more dominant market share than they had before the crisis — an ironic outcome! They have returned to reporting large profits, though they are still completely wards of the U.S. Treasury.

    Anther encroachment on private property would be the more aggressive use of imminent domain where local and state governments force owners off their land so that a commercial enterprise, like a shopping mall, can be built simply because that business will bring more money to government in the form of higher property taxes, corporate taxes, and sales taxes.

Comments are closed.