Republicans move to sell off 3.3m acres of national land, sparking rallies

[Deleted]

Don't know what UK your talking about, its not the one I live in. In the city centres its busy with limited area's and park space but else where is quite rural.

The largest land owner is the forestry commission, own and maintained by the government for the public use and which has been expanding the UK's forests and woodlands for decades.

93% of the uk is classified and not urban and of that 7% that is only 2% is classified and not natural.

Most cities and towns have over 50% green space, parks, allotments, sports pitches etc

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18623096 have read its enlightening.

You misread my post. I never claimed that it was urban. Yes, its exactly as that BBC page claims.

I've mostly driven through areas north of London, up to Hull. There weren't any forests, just small areas of trees, the rest of land is covered in grass/whatever fields. Your "green space" is pathetic compared to green space we have in Estonia.

Here are bunch of images from google that will show you what real green space looks like: https://www.google.ee/search?q=tervi...se+rajad+eesti (search keyword means "health paths estonia")

and what forests actually look like: https://www.google.ee/search?q=tervi...iigimets+eesti (search keyword means "government forest estonia")

[Orbitus]

2 totally different things. Obama basically locked up the land by calling it a "monument" so that it couldnt be used (seizing it). Trump isnt the one doing this. Its the Republicans in the house, and they arent seizing it, they are selling it off so it CAN be used. And the proceeds can be used to pay off some debt

WRONG. He didn't "lock it up and say it can't be used". He protected it so no one can use it for drilling for oil and destroying the natural resources and whatnot. Selling it off so it can be used, means that some lobbyist paid him off so they can put up oil wells and dig up whatever is on there, regardless if it should be protected or not. If you think that they are going to use that money to pay off debt, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you.

- - - Updated - - -

~67% of Utah is is federal land, right?

Anybody want to explain to me why so much of the state has to belong to the federal government?

Because they owned it before the state became a state? They gave away some land for the whole Manifest Destiny part in the 1800s but when they purchased the land or won it, it went to the government.

[Woadnson]

93% of the uk is classified and not urban and of that 7% that is only 2% is classified and not natural.

Just a note, but there is zero information on land owned by the gentry in that breakdown. The Lords, Dukes and other pomp titled personages that own greenbelt land and gripe and moan about ramblers rights prevent large percentages of said land from being used by anybody but them.

[Hiricine]

Because these lands hold nearly no value to private owners, where as they provide a benefit to the public to be held and maintained as they exist now.

You would think that the public would be willing to buy the land for whatever value it provides the public, since they could at least make a profit off of it.

Besides, if I understand the situation correctly, a huge chunk of the land isn't even open to the public (and therefore provides near zero benefit). I get the part where we have national parks, but thats a minority of that land that we're talking about here, and even inside those national parks theres a good chunk of stuff no one gives a crap about.