Trump: BLM ‘damaging economy,’ ‘impediment to growth’

Note: "BLM" refers to the Bureau of Land Management, not Black Lives Matter.

Trump: BLM ‘damaging economy,’ ‘impediment to growth’

GOP frontrunner claims federal agency's policies have made cost of land "skyrocket"

Uh oh! Is Trump about to jump into the HUGE mess brewing in the west over the federal government's mismanagement of public -- and private -- lands... and the people??? Is he just pandering to the voters? Given Hillary's shady dealings with the uranium companies and Russians with OUR public lands, it would be a great weapon in his campaign arsenal.

The federal Bureau of Land Management’s policies of buying up land and selling it back to the public at steep premiums is damaging the economy and inhibiting growth, presidential frontrunner Donald Trump penned in a recent op-ed. Published with little fanfare in the Reno Gazette-Journal ahead of last month’s Nevada caucus, the billionaire real estate mogul wrote the BLM’s reluctance to release land, in combination with the failure to enforce immigration laws, is “damaging the economy, lowering the standard of living and inhibiting natural economic growth.”

The article posted above is from InfoWars and was posted yesterday... But it quotes an editorial authored by Trump and published in the Reno (NV) Gazette Journal way back on January 28.

Trump: Nevada, US need a president who obeys rule of law

The day after the feds and other authorities ambushed and killed a man who had hurt no one, but was educating many people on the transgressions of the federal agencies under the law, and their rights and resources and recourses. He was a threat, but only to those who would do him harm. Even kill him. But I digress... Granted, I was distracted by the fed's most recent transgression, a deadly transgression, but I couldn't believe I hadn't read or heard anything about it. So I did a search for this specific passage from the editorial:

nameless bureaucrats to manage public lands as if the millions of acres were owned by agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management and the Department of Energy?

The Reno Gazette Journal link came up, and some blogs that had reposted, but no news sources. So I searched "news" sources only. Just the Reno Gazette Journal. But how could that be, since the Reno Gazette Journal proudly proclaims they are part of the USA Today Network? So I searched for the phrase specifically with USA Today and... wait for it... just the link to the Reno Gazette Journal.

Somehow not one other news agency in Nevada -- with their caucuses only weeks away -- felt it newsworthy that the GOP frontrunner for their next president was speaking to a major issue directly impacting their state and its residents, as well as (albeit indirectly) to the biggest issue of the day and what brought us here. Not. Even. One.

I'm cautiously keeping my fingers crossed that now that the investigation has been completed, and I expect the autopsy results to be released shortly, as well as additional evidence and information, that Trump will make this a campaign issue. I am not a Trump supporter now and doubt I ever will be, but if he jumps on this and shines a big fat bright spotlight on the many dirty deeds of the many federal agencies, it will go a long way for me towards trusting him a little more -- at least in the sense that I won't suspect him of being a spoiler. I can't think of anyone better positioned to bring it into the election as a major issue AND to the full attention of the voting public.

Harry Reid reigns supreme in Nevada. No one dare challenge the king. Reid love BLM

That'll poll well in the western states.

originally posted by: liveandlearn
Harry Reid reigns supreme in Nevada. No one dare challenge the king. Reid love BLM

A couple years ago, I would have agreed. But these days I'm not sure that's so true anymore... that Reid reigns supreme in Nevada -- not that he loves the BLM. Maybe it's wishful thinking on my part. It just seems that he's been strangely out of the loop since that New Year's accident...

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
That'll poll well in the western states.

It sure will. One of my first thoughts was "pandering" to the western voter who is directly affected by all this.

It will also poll well with the Bernie supporters who will never support Hillary.

We'll see what happens.

I am sure he would love to start dismantling our natural resources that we have always enjoyed. We have lots of water to poison with fracking. That may very well start a civil war. The loudest ones who want this land grab are outsiders.

originally posted by: Boadicea

originally posted by: liveandlearn
Harry Reid reigns supreme in Nevada. No one dare challenge the king. Reid love BLM

A couple years ago, I would have agreed. But these days I'm not sure that's so true anymore... that Reid reigns supreme in Nevada -- not that he loves the BLM. Maybe it's wishful thinking on my part. It just seems that he's been strangely out of the loop since that New Year's accident...

My point was not that he any longer reigns supreme with the people but that he has so much power within Nevada's power brokers in the state and elsewhere that no one dare go against him. He reminds me of Hillary but less obvious.

originally posted by: MOMof3
I am sure he would love to start dismantling our natural resources that we have always enjoyed.

I'm not sure why you say that, because I've heard him positively of national parks and federal management of some lands. But I'm happy to be schooled if you've read or heard otherwise.

The loudest ones who want this land grab are outsiders.

There are definitely plenty of those -- both outside the western states impacted, and even outside the country, such as the deals Hillary was making with Canadian and Russian uranium interests.

And then there are scavengers within the west. I read about prime land in Colorado's ski resort country being sold to the state, who will sell it to a developer, who will build homes for the wealthy...

a reply to: Boadicea

If his plan is take Federal lands, BLM lands so it can be sold to private, it won't fly with eastern washington, probably all of WA and North Idaho. I couldn't get through all the pop ups for the sources.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: Boadicea

If his plan is take Federal lands, BLM lands so it can be sold to private, it won't fly with eastern washington, probably all of WA and North Idaho.

That's already happening, and yes, many are not happy about it, all across the west. Trump didn't specify what he would do about it; he just pointed out the problem.

I couldn't get through all the pop ups for the sources.

What pop ups? (I have Adblocker so I don't get the popups) The OP sources? Trump's editorial is at the Reno Gazette Journal here.

a reply to: Boadicea

"The BLM controls over 85 percent of the land in Nevada. In the rural areas, those who for decades have had access to public lands for ranching, mining, logging and energy development are forced to deal with arbitrary and capricious rules that are influenced by special interests that profit from the D.C. rule-making and who fill the campaign coffers of Washington politicians. Far removed from the beautiful wide open spaces of Nevada, bureaucrats bend to the influence that is closest to them. Honest, hardworking citizens who seek freedom and economic independence must beg for deference from a federal government that is more intent on power and control than it is in serving the citizens of the nation. In and around Clark County, the situation is even worse."

This makes no sense. He says " In the rural areas, those who for decades have had access to public lands for ranching, mining, logging and energy development"

In the same sentence " forced to deal with arbitrary and capricious rules that are influenced by special interests that profit from the D.C. rule-making and who fill the campaign coffers of Washington politicians."
Who else profits from the use of the land except the people he listed because they are the only ones with "special interest".
We camp, hunt, fish on BLM land 20 minutes from here. Ranchers run their cattle on BLM land. Fortunately we don't have fracking that I know of. Idaho just finished decades of cleaning the lead out of Kellogg/Wallace, Id.

a reply to: MOMof3

Who else profits from the use of the land except the people he listed because they are the only ones with "special interest".

My best guess is that he is setting up a full frontal attack on Hillary:

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

I'm sure Trump can dig up plenty of dirt on political critters that have profited from such shady deals, but Hillary is the one he has to take down.

a reply to: Boadicea

First of all, I don't care.

Second, it says it is a tale: "At the heart of the tale are several men, leaders of the Canadian mining industry, who have been major donors to the charitable endeavors of former President Bill Clinton and his family. Members of that group built, financed and eventually sold off to the Russians a company that would become known as Uranium One."

And yet hes for the use of imminent domain.......

What a hypocrite..........

a reply to: MOMof3

First of all, I don't care.

Okay. I don't really know where else to go with that.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask
And yet hes for the use of imminent domain.......

What a hypocrite..........

Yup. That's the first reason I don't suppport him.

It will be interesting to see how (and if of course) he actually pursues this. Trump is not exactly known for the consistency of his positions. Lots of pandering potential there...

Or, if he is just a spoiler, then he could just make a total mess out of it as well and not really say anything of real importance.

a reply to: Boadicea

Trump isn't pandering to voters at all. He is serious about stopping all the ruination and corruption in government. This is a good thing.
If I was in his position I would be calling out every single corrupt official with the same words, and I would be firing and refurbishing all of the corrupt agencies if I was president, and I know a lot of folks here would do the same thing, even at risk to themselves.

He is already putting himself at risk by calling them to the carpet which anyone should be able to see by now. Many do, and that's what they fear about Trump because the establishment is running scared. Here comes a guy that is going to drive a steam roller over their money tree if he wins.

Finally America has a real voice against the fully corrupt system that is deeply entrenched with career scumbag politicians and it could all be coming to an end.

I bet he is having fun at the thought of being the one to drop the hammer down and these a-holes who don't deserve a single penny from anyone anymore.

Unlike Bush or Obama, or Hillary, who have and would use their position to do many HIDDEN things behind America's back, and THAT NEEDS TO END

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Trump isn't pandering to voters at all. He is serious about stopping all the ruination and corruption in government. This is a good thing.

This issue actually perfectly demonstrates my reluctance to believe that...

In contrast to the gist of his editorial, Trump has stated -- and I'm paraphrasing -- that he wants the feds to continue managing public lands because he doesn't trust the states. He stood on the side of the feds in the Oregon Occupation (although he did say they could come talk to him). He is also a big fan of using eminent domain to take private property for his private business. That's not a consistent support for private property rights. I can't see a rhyme or reason there, no firm principles he's standing on.

Trump also complains about illegal immigration across the southern border in his editorial, but he uses foreign workers via the H1B Visa program to put American workers out of jobs, and supports even more such visas which will put even more American workers out of jobs.

I see someone all over the place. I love the overwhelming support from the people for an outsider, I just don't think Trump is the right outsider.

Trump: The U.S. Needs a president who will obey the law.

In response to using torture and the general refusal to do so.

Trump: Trust me, Ithey will do it. The generals will do it.


Trump: They are taking our Jobs. It's China manipulating the currency.
*Continues to produce his clothing in China and Mexico.*


Trump: What the former Mexican president said was completely inappropriate and rude.
Trump goes on his own rants where he uses the F bomb numerous times. Insults candidates.

Trump; Look at all these politicians, they take your money and don't care. I'm against the establishment."

In his history, he has donated to both republicans and democrats, and has admitting openly to donating to the current front-runner of the democratic party.


Christ....but, even through all that hypocrisy...supporters gonna support.

Just because "The BLM controls over 85 percent of the land in Nevada," it doesn't mean that that is what drives land prices!

In many cases, vacant land here is raw desert with no underground utilities, making development costs more expensive, a possible turn-off in today’s far-from-roaring market.

“Just because there’s land doesn’t mean it’s usable,” Smith said.

Perhaps reflecting that are recent U.S. Bureau of Land Management auctions.

During the boom years last decade, homebuilders flooded BLM auctions, spending huge sums for massive chunks of land. In 2005, for instance, developer John Ritter’s Focus Property Group led a consortium that paid $510 million for roughly 1,700 acres, or $300,000 per acre, in northwest Las Vegas. Months later, Goett led a group that paid $639 million for 2,700 acres, or around $237,000 per acre, in North Las Vegas.

At a 2002 auction, a BLM spokesman said the “energy and electricity” at the packed event “was simply breathtaking.”

“I wasn’t even bidding, and my stomach was churning,” he said.

That frenzy is long gone. Last May, investors bought almost 358 acres at a BLM auction for $19.2 million, or $53,700 per acre. But they passed on 240 acres that also were offered that day.

In November, investors bought around 260 acres at auction for $32.6 million, or about $125,000 per acre — leaving 365 acres on the table.

Las Vegas land isn’t dirt cheap, but here’s why it isn’t selling like it once was