Letter: Selling public land cheap hurts the valley

Tuesday, Nov. 13, 2007 | 7:11 a.m.

I read with interest your Nov. 10 article by reporter Brian Wargo headlined "BLM looks at better way to unload land." The article said that with the real estate market sagging, the Bureau of Land Management is studying whether to sell land at below its appraised value.

Selling federal land is selling taxpayer assets. A high price has one advantage - it might restrict growth in Southern Nevada and thus constrain our use of vanishing water.

Holding that land as a public asset, however, serves the public better. The land can continue to appreciate in value and provide access in the meantime.

The only beneficiaries of bargain sales are developers - who, of course, provide campaign contributions to politicians. Do not the rest of us end up with higher taxes to compensate for this subsidized growth? The impact of more schools and other services and infrastructure, and the rapidly vanishing water supply, must result in higher taxes.

One might also ask whether this is more than a local issue. Is the BLM's price-cutting another example of the Bush administration's theory that the only role for government is "national security"? Certainly the Bush administration supports gigantic budgets for Iraq and the Defense Department (but even those budgets fail to properly provide for the future care of the equivalent of two divisions of seriously wounded Iraq veterans).

On the other hand, the Bush administration tries to take government out of security for the aged, children, public schools, highways and bridges, food safety, national parks, etc. It also refuses to tax high-income earners at a fair rate.

Within these constraints, it seems we must sell out federal assets fast, regardless of the impact on water use, future values and local taxes. How can we make the BLM more responsive to local need, instead of to current White House values?

Douglas Thornsjo, Henderson