Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!auvm!CMUVM!34LMLFQ From: 34LMLFQ@CMUVM.BITNET (Chris Curtis) Newsgroups: bit.listserv.politics Subject: Environment Message-ID: <90038.0240.34LMLFQ@CMUVM> Date: 7 Feb 90 02:40:11 GMT Sender: Forum for the Discussion of Politics Reply-To: Forum for the Discussion of Politics Lines: 29 Approved: NETNEWS@AUVM Gateway >The government is not >supposed to own 42% (yes Jamie it's 42%) of the land in this nation. >DTM I'm curious to where you arrived at the figure of 42%. I've never run across the figures for how much land Uncle Sam owns - probably because I've never looked - so I'd appreciate a source to check. Thanks. This does bring up an interesting point, however. I think I can ascertain Dave's stand on the issue ( ;-) ), and you can probably guess that I'm just waiting to take a counter position. But anyway, where do you think the gov't should stand in terms of its own land ownership? The issue has come up several times as a tangent, but never really fully addressed. Can we assume that the government will care for the land properly and make the best use of it? Would the land be put to better use if it was 'privately' owned? and developed? Don't we have an obligation to the rapidly deteriorating environmental sit- uation around the world? Hence to not develop the land and thus contribute to the Greenhouse Effect? (O.K.- loaded question, but relevant.) As I said, I know the issue has been covered somewhat as a side issue to larger arguments; but I'd like to know what people think of the issue as a 'real world' issue (for lack of a better term - and thesaurus). --Chris