HB 1008 Would Require WDFW, DNR & Parks to Sell Land if they Want to Buy Land

[bigtex]

Legislative bills are beginning be to prefiled in Olympia. The legislative session doesn't start until January.

HB 1008 sponsored by Representatives Shea, Taylor, Short, and McCaslin (all Republicans) would require that if DNR/WDFW/State Parks was to acquire lands in a county, they MUST then sell land in that same county that contains equal to or a greater amount of acreage.

Example: WDFW wants to acquire 5 acres to provide access to a lake in Whitman County. WDFW would then be required to sell 5 or more acres of WDFW currently owned land in Whitman County.

It is essentially an "acre in, acre out" policy which would essentially stop the increase in the amount of state land in WA.

http://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?BillNumber=1008&Year=2017

[Curly]

Hell no should be an option.

[PastorJoel]

As a hunter I am against it.  It is interesting to me that it seems to be the only 'big government' thing that I actually like.

[bigtex]

Hell no should be an option.

For those that want the feds to give states federal lands what does this say??

The interesting thing is this group of legislators is basically saying WDFW/DNR/Parks shouldn't acquire new lands because of $, yet every year some of these same individuals push for a bill demanding the feds turn over federal lands in WA to the state  It'd be nice if someone lived in one of these legislator's district and emailed them a letter outlining their disagreement with the bill to see what their response is.

[Special T]

I don't know the reasoning but here would be my guess. All these departments complain about the cost of "maintaining" lands they own. If they can't maintain the land they have why do they need more?

[WAcoyotehunter]

My guess is that they are going to make a tax argument that lands owned by the state are not on the tax rolls and can't be developed for even more taxes... Even though the state pays a PILT for their ownership.  It's garbage legislation; hopefully it dies quickly

[Curly]

Hell no should be an option.

For those that want the feds to give states federal lands what does this say??

The interesting thing is this group of legislators is basically saying WDFW/DNR/Parks shouldn't acquire new lands because of $, yet every year some of these same individuals push for a bill demanding the feds turn over federal lands in WA to the state  It'd be nice if someone lived in one of these legislator's district and emailed them a letter outlining their disagreement with the bill to see what their response is.

I have to admit I used to like the idea of transfer of Federal lands to the State.  I'm still on the fence but heavily leaning toward not liking the idea anymore.  Seems the states can't be trusted to do the right thing with the lands. 

I figured there should be a way to work out a stipulation where the land could only be transferred if there was some sort of legal document written up where the land could never be sold to private ownership unless it is swapped for other land somewhere else that would become public.  And it could only be transferred if the land would have public access is provided. 

With that said, it seems that politicians are wanting the land so that the State can sell it off and make money.  So, if they aren't wanting the land in order to mange the resources (like timber sales or provide recreation) then even if the Feds are doing a poor job of managing the land, then maybe it is best to just leave it as federal land and hope that someday management of the land will get better.  I don't want to lose any public lands.

[Stickerbush]

this is goofy, I don't see the need here. Its beneficial to the public for the state to get more land for hunting and fishing opputunities

[andersonjk4]

My guess is that they are going to make a tax argument that lands owned by the state are not on the tax rolls and can't be developed for even more taxes... Even though the state pays a PILT for their ownership.  It's garbage legislation; hopefully it dies quickly

  I bet this is exactly what they would argue.  There was some backlash in Asotin County when the state purchased a large piece of private land because the county was loosing out on tax revenue.  I thought I remembered a proposal that the state would pay the county some percentage to make up for lost tax revenue.  That is a bill I would support. 

[Gringo31]

Voted no...


Of all the things out there that are broken.....this is the fix of priority? 

[Boss .300 winmag]

Voted no...


Of all the things out there that are broken.....this is the fix of priority? 

 

[Stein]

Honestly, when a republican introduces a bill pertaining to government land ownership, a hunter could vote "no" and be "right" about 98% of the time.  This is coming from a conservative, they simply are on the wrong side of the argument on public land ownership.  It would be nice to see conservation groups becoming more relevant in the campaign donation side.

[Cougartail]

The state/counties/cities don't need to collect more taxes, they need to spend less.

[JimmyHoffa]

My guess is that they are going to make a tax argument that lands owned by the state are not on the tax rolls and can't be developed for even more taxes... Even though the state pays a PILT for their ownership.  It's garbage legislation; hopefully it dies quickly

  I bet this is exactly what they would argue.  There was some backlash in Asotin County when the state purchased a large piece of private land because the county was loosing out on tax revenue.  I thought I remembered a proposal that the state would pay the county some percentage to make up for lost tax revenue.  That is a bill I would support.

Tax money is still coming from some group of citizens. 

[JLS]

My guess is that they are going to make a tax argument that lands owned by the state are not on the tax rolls and can't be developed for even more taxes... Even though the state pays a PILT for their ownership.  It's garbage legislation; hopefully it dies quickly

  I bet this is exactly what they would argue.  There was some backlash in Asotin County when the state purchased a large piece of private land because the county was loosing out on tax revenue.  I thought I remembered a proposal that the state would pay the county some percentage to make up for lost tax revenue.  That is a bill I would support.

The state pays the counties PILT (payment in lieu of taxes) for land that they own.  Typically, the amount of PILT is higher than the taxation rate that a landowner would pay under agricultural status.  Ironically, during the budget cuts of recent legislative sessions, the legislature took away monies that were appropriated for PILT.  So, instead of getting mad at state agencies, maybe folks should have been asking their legislators why the state was not making its payments.