Sprawl is the worst. We have enough of it already. Bring back the traditional small town with a street grid and an actual downtown with small shops. Screw the big box corporate sprawl. Time to make towns great again
While I don't disagree with the sentiment of NOT bulldoznig wildlands for walmarts, everything else you said is pretty much wrong. We're NOT experiencing a population decline. Our population IS growing by most metrics. Both through immigration and through birth rates.
The birth rate thing is a giant lie that's manipulated by statistical oddities. For example, for decades the western world (including the US) has done EVERYTHING we could to lower and eliminate teenage birth rates. And we've largely been successful. Teenage birthrates are at a historical low to the point they're a rounding error in the grand scheme of things at this point. But despite this teenagers (and in some places girls as young as 10-12) are counted in birth rate statistics. In the US specifically they make up roughly 20-30% of the "birthing age female population).
So you have a fifth to nearly a third of the statistic group, actively being manipulated by outside forces to NOT do the thing you're testing. That obviously throws off final stats greatly. If you throw out that group and account for only "acceptable birthing age" the US birth rate is like 2.0-2.1, and some years 2.2 or above. Combine that with net immigration (even just limited legal immigration which most people are alright with), and we still have a healthy growing population.
PERSONALLY, I do agree though that we need to spend less time and money on developing new ghettos and slums (let's be honest, that's all section 8 is), and more time and money on fixing up the dilapidated parts of our existing cities and revitalizing our own small towns. Though realistically I don't think any of this is really going to be a problem. Post cabal, when the economy is infinitely better and there's a massive boom in production jobs, things like small town and ghetto revitalization will happen naturally and eliminate the need for stuff like this.
The only REAL use for this kind of thing in my opinion is to open up and privatize the massive amounts of farm and ranch land out west to farmers and ranchers. I mean serious, half the state is owned by the feds in Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona. Most of the Prime land with good water is fed land which forces farmers and ranchers to fight for leases with good water. I'd be open to something like that.
Enacting this sort of thinking gives the government unlimited power over your property. A developer is going to 'revitalize' a shopping center but needs an additional two acres. Property owners are forced to sell to the developer.
How about abolishing property zoning so that the urban 'landscape' can change as needed instead of being planned by city dimwits looking to squeeze every penny out of land?
You make some very excellent points and I agree with many of them. We really have screwed ourselves in many ways. I do still feel like New Urbanism type development is part of the solution. Sprawl is making us bankrupt as it’s massively subsidized and financially inefficient compared to traditional towns. But all it takes is a section 8 down the street and there goes the neighborhood- so everyone moves out and only the losers remain, and there goes the town itself. So no more subsidized housing at all. That should be gutted. Property taxes are a big part of it too - cities trying to tax their way out of debt or to pay for ‘dem programs’ drive people out too…. And then you get politicians who are bought and paid for by corrupt developers and lowlife democrat welfare residents and next thing you know the whole place turns into Detroit and all the people abandon the city
why is more housing being built? not by and large for people to continuously live in, i don't think. There are a fuck ton of empty houses in this land. enough for every homeless person out there. Not to mention the millions of people exiting the country to go home, right now.
I remember when James Watt tried to sell off a lot of federal lands to their buddies under Reagan. It wasn't well received.
What some folks don't realize is that federal lands have a lot of oil and gas under them. I don't know if they intend to convey mineral rights but if they do you can expect the lands to go to big oil and gas instead of them just leasing the rights to the minerals. And they will definitely fuck the people out of access. They try that frequently even when all they have is mineral rights.
Exactly. People out East have no idea how free it is being able to just.... go somewhere. No planning. No permission. No fees. Just wherever your feet or wheels can get you.
One of the areas listed for potential sale is this system of canyons and trails that all the locals who 'know' know is a great place to just go get away from things.
Will someone buy it? Probably not, it's going to be nearly impossible to develop. But if they do, guess what, a giant disgusting fence goes up, 'no trespassing' signs, all so some fucking cunt can go 'GDP GO UP'.
Fuck off. The land that would be sold would naturally be the land that is more accessible than not. That means it's primarily going to steal land that everyone uses for recreation.
"Muh economic development" oh blow it out your ass with this 'GDP GO UP' shit.
My guy the land was already stolen when the Feds hoovered that shit up without remitting it back to the States. You already have no actual rights to that land, you are a glorified tenant with access priviledges that can be stripped at a moments notice by the Feds.
Because even if you want to assume best case no government tomfoolery, the simple fact of the matter is that with the Feds in charge of it, that means "your" land is actually property of that 80% who lives in the East of the US.
Do you really want "your" land dictated by those hundreds of miles away? Those people out East, who by your own words "...have no idea how free it is being able to just.... go somewhere."
You're inventing hypotheticals that don't work because BLM/NFS land is already about as unrestricted as possible. There's few regulations on them for recre use, mostly they're just about fire control.
How the fuck are you actually arguing it could be "better" when it's already fine? It literally only has potential to get worse, which is what happens to almost every plot of state owned land. Go pick a state and actually look up the laws on what state land can be used for, and it's typically significantly restricted. No OHVs, no shooting, no fires, etc.
There are plots of land that isn't for sale that is landlocked behind BLM/NFS land and that means the trailheads go through that sellable land.
How much of a cynical shekel bandit do you have to be to think that it's better for everyone to put up a fence on that land and charge people to walk through what they used to do for free? That's what it's like in Ireland and the UK. You can't get to certain heritage cites without paying the farmer who controls the one road to it. He does t own the site, but he charges you to get to ancestoral history. That's fucking vile.
"Wide open, beautiful" land out West is increasingly becoming inaccessible government/agency land".. It's a HUGE problem that's only getting worse via government and agency overreach, "agendas" and mismanagement.
Unlike "back East", much/most land out West is unfenced (or fenced with easily-accessible gates), wide-open range (over hills, mountains, valleys, streams, etc.) that was ALWAYS - until a few years or a decade or so ago - open to recreation (camping, hiking, off-roading, hunting, shooting, dirt,-biking, joy-riding, exploring, spelunking, and such). SO many AMAZING things are "out there" - water features - rivers, springs, waterfalls and oases; natural formations - caves, lava fliws, hills/mountains of rock "pushed up" at odd (up to 90°) angles where one can see the layers of rock deposited during various epochs and/ir volvmcanuc eruptions; ghost towns; abandoned mines, equipment and vehicles; abandoned shacks/cabins/homes; animals - birds, horses, cattle, bobcats, bears, reptiles; plants of all kinds - trees, cacti (FYI - the gnarliest cacti produce the most amazing flowers), perennials, annuals and biennials - and they're being removed from public access/view (by government and agency overreach and, more recently, as part of Agenda 2030's 30x30).
How is this being done? Increasingly, these lands are being "acquired" by the government or agencies, fenced off and gated. Roads that do exist (many not more than gravel occasionally run over with a maintainer) are being allowed to fall into disrepair; to be blocked by overgrowth, fallen trees or boulders; to wash out/away due to heavy rains; or to outright be made inaccessible with hardened gates, and locks along with "Government (or BLM) Property - No Trespassing" signs.
To the aforementioned shenanigans, add "climate crisis" restrictions, medical/health/plandemic fear-mongering (and restrictions/mandates), rigged elections to install "their" puppets to rule over us, and the dumbing-down of the populace via inadequate education and bad/toxic food, It's clear that "their" goals ARE - OR WERE (before The Awakening PDJT and The Plan) - to prohibit travel and access to the majority of the land in this country, to keep everyone in fear, to corral everyone into (more manageable) 15-minute cities and to convince everyone that by owning nothing - and going nowhere - they'll "be happy".
Though we've made headway against "their" anti-human plans, there's still much to do to halt them and to correct/rectify what's already been taken/destroyed and those actions must include removing A LOT of land from the government's and agencies' clutches.
100% people don't realize much of this land was collateralized for Chinese debt. That gave the chicoms access to the mineral rights etc. Obama went after a ton of land on tje red river in Oklahoma. Clinton locked up huge chunks in Utah that we then had to pay a Canadian company billions for minerals they could no longer exploit when he did that. Which likely a kickback scam.
Fed owns 41% of California. Diane feinstein sponsored and got the natural dessert protection act passed. Or whatever it was called. I'm sure anything that hag does is for reasons that are no good. I'm sure there's tons of oil gas and minerals under fed land.
I love state Forest land personally. Last year I went out to one of my go to hunting spots before season and discovered they had been cleaning brush with big equipment all spring and summer. Leaving all the big trees and making room for logging to come in. The whole place was going to be clear cut. I don't know where the $ from all that timber goes but it doesn't lower my taxes
You lolberts talk about "freedom". You know what freedom is? Being able to travel through my state and not see miles and miles of fences lining every parcel of land. It's being able to just drive out down a trail, park, go for a hike, camp, shoot guns, ride a horse, etc.
When I was on a roadtrip of the west, I never bothered with a hotel. I just drove off in to the desert and spent the night.
When I got to South Dakota, almost all of the land was privately owned. Fences everywhere. I couldn't find anywhere to spend the night.
When I went backpacking in Colorado, I picked a lake on some NFS land, and just.... went there. No permits. No fees. Unregulated wilderness.
THERE ARE ZERO PROS FOR NORMAL PEOPLE.
This is just faggy "GDP GOES UP" retarded nonsense.
Sprawl is the worst. We have enough of it already. Bring back the traditional small town with a street grid and an actual downtown with small shops. Screw the big box corporate sprawl. Time to make towns great again
Gosh we millennials feel this so badly
While I don't disagree with the sentiment of NOT bulldoznig wildlands for walmarts, everything else you said is pretty much wrong. We're NOT experiencing a population decline. Our population IS growing by most metrics. Both through immigration and through birth rates.
The birth rate thing is a giant lie that's manipulated by statistical oddities. For example, for decades the western world (including the US) has done EVERYTHING we could to lower and eliminate teenage birth rates. And we've largely been successful. Teenage birthrates are at a historical low to the point they're a rounding error in the grand scheme of things at this point. But despite this teenagers (and in some places girls as young as 10-12) are counted in birth rate statistics. In the US specifically they make up roughly 20-30% of the "birthing age female population).
So you have a fifth to nearly a third of the statistic group, actively being manipulated by outside forces to NOT do the thing you're testing. That obviously throws off final stats greatly. If you throw out that group and account for only "acceptable birthing age" the US birth rate is like 2.0-2.1, and some years 2.2 or above. Combine that with net immigration (even just limited legal immigration which most people are alright with), and we still have a healthy growing population.
PERSONALLY, I do agree though that we need to spend less time and money on developing new ghettos and slums (let's be honest, that's all section 8 is), and more time and money on fixing up the dilapidated parts of our existing cities and revitalizing our own small towns. Though realistically I don't think any of this is really going to be a problem. Post cabal, when the economy is infinitely better and there's a massive boom in production jobs, things like small town and ghetto revitalization will happen naturally and eliminate the need for stuff like this.
The only REAL use for this kind of thing in my opinion is to open up and privatize the massive amounts of farm and ranch land out west to farmers and ranchers. I mean serious, half the state is owned by the feds in Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona. Most of the Prime land with good water is fed land which forces farmers and ranchers to fight for leases with good water. I'd be open to something like that.
billionaires gotta get that money. This isn't for us. It's for foreign billionaires.
Enacting this sort of thinking gives the government unlimited power over your property. A developer is going to 'revitalize' a shopping center but needs an additional two acres. Property owners are forced to sell to the developer.
How about abolishing property zoning so that the urban 'landscape' can change as needed instead of being planned by city dimwits looking to squeeze every penny out of land?
You make some very excellent points and I agree with many of them. We really have screwed ourselves in many ways. I do still feel like New Urbanism type development is part of the solution. Sprawl is making us bankrupt as it’s massively subsidized and financially inefficient compared to traditional towns. But all it takes is a section 8 down the street and there goes the neighborhood- so everyone moves out and only the losers remain, and there goes the town itself. So no more subsidized housing at all. That should be gutted. Property taxes are a big part of it too - cities trying to tax their way out of debt or to pay for ‘dem programs’ drive people out too…. And then you get politicians who are bought and paid for by corrupt developers and lowlife democrat welfare residents and next thing you know the whole place turns into Detroit and all the people abandon the city
why is more housing being built? not by and large for people to continuously live in, i don't think. There are a fuck ton of empty houses in this land. enough for every homeless person out there. Not to mention the millions of people exiting the country to go home, right now.
I remember when James Watt tried to sell off a lot of federal lands to their buddies under Reagan. It wasn't well received.
What some folks don't realize is that federal lands have a lot of oil and gas under them. I don't know if they intend to convey mineral rights but if they do you can expect the lands to go to big oil and gas instead of them just leasing the rights to the minerals. And they will definitely fuck the people out of access. They try that frequently even when all they have is mineral rights.
Exactly. People out East have no idea how free it is being able to just.... go somewhere. No planning. No permission. No fees. Just wherever your feet or wheels can get you.
One of the areas listed for potential sale is this system of canyons and trails that all the locals who 'know' know is a great place to just go get away from things.
Will someone buy it? Probably not, it's going to be nearly impossible to develop. But if they do, guess what, a giant disgusting fence goes up, 'no trespassing' signs, all so some fucking cunt can go 'GDP GO UP'.
Some western states are landlocked and can't grow. The feds own to much land. And we are not talking about park land.
Back east the fed own very little land and it's much different.
63% of Nevada is owned by the feds. Selling 3% wouldn't make any difference to us,but i huge difference for economic development in the state i bet.
https://www.npr.org/2025/05/07/g-s1-64760/house-republicans-approve-amendment-authorizing-the-sale-of-federal-lands
Notice how they show a picture of the Colorado River in an artical about selling land?
Fuck off. The land that would be sold would naturally be the land that is more accessible than not. That means it's primarily going to steal land that everyone uses for recreation.
"Muh economic development" oh blow it out your ass with this 'GDP GO UP' shit.
My guy the land was already stolen when the Feds hoovered that shit up without remitting it back to the States. You already have no actual rights to that land, you are a glorified tenant with access priviledges that can be stripped at a moments notice by the Feds.
What do I give a shit if "muh states" has it?
Because even if you want to assume best case no government tomfoolery, the simple fact of the matter is that with the Feds in charge of it, that means "your" land is actually property of that 80% who lives in the East of the US.
Do you really want "your" land dictated by those hundreds of miles away? Those people out East, who by your own words "...have no idea how free it is being able to just.... go somewhere."
You're inventing hypotheticals that don't work because BLM/NFS land is already about as unrestricted as possible. There's few regulations on them for recre use, mostly they're just about fire control.
How the fuck are you actually arguing it could be "better" when it's already fine? It literally only has potential to get worse, which is what happens to almost every plot of state owned land. Go pick a state and actually look up the laws on what state land can be used for, and it's typically significantly restricted. No OHVs, no shooting, no fires, etc.
There are plots of land that isn't for sale that is landlocked behind BLM/NFS land and that means the trailheads go through that sellable land.
How much of a cynical shekel bandit do you have to be to think that it's better for everyone to put up a fence on that land and charge people to walk through what they used to do for free? That's what it's like in Ireland and the UK. You can't get to certain heritage cites without paying the farmer who controls the one road to it. He does t own the site, but he charges you to get to ancestoral history. That's fucking vile.
Bill Clinton locked us out anyway. They built gates and big bears on the roads many years ago and made it unuseable.
Look up his roadless initiative.
"Wide open, beautiful" land out West is increasingly becoming inaccessible government/agency land".. It's a HUGE problem that's only getting worse via government and agency overreach, "agendas" and mismanagement.
Unlike "back East", much/most land out West is unfenced (or fenced with easily-accessible gates), wide-open range (over hills, mountains, valleys, streams, etc.) that was ALWAYS - until a few years or a decade or so ago - open to recreation (camping, hiking, off-roading, hunting, shooting, dirt,-biking, joy-riding, exploring, spelunking, and such). SO many AMAZING things are "out there" - water features - rivers, springs, waterfalls and oases; natural formations - caves, lava fliws, hills/mountains of rock "pushed up" at odd (up to 90°) angles where one can see the layers of rock deposited during various epochs and/ir volvmcanuc eruptions; ghost towns; abandoned mines, equipment and vehicles; abandoned shacks/cabins/homes; animals - birds, horses, cattle, bobcats, bears, reptiles; plants of all kinds - trees, cacti (FYI - the gnarliest cacti produce the most amazing flowers), perennials, annuals and biennials - and they're being removed from public access/view (by government and agency overreach and, more recently, as part of Agenda 2030's 30x30).
How is this being done? Increasingly, these lands are being "acquired" by the government or agencies, fenced off and gated. Roads that do exist (many not more than gravel occasionally run over with a maintainer) are being allowed to fall into disrepair; to be blocked by overgrowth, fallen trees or boulders; to wash out/away due to heavy rains; or to outright be made inaccessible with hardened gates, and locks along with "Government (or BLM) Property - No Trespassing" signs.
To the aforementioned shenanigans, add "climate crisis" restrictions, medical/health/plandemic fear-mongering (and restrictions/mandates), rigged elections to install "their" puppets to rule over us, and the dumbing-down of the populace via inadequate education and bad/toxic food, It's clear that "their" goals ARE - OR WERE (before The Awakening PDJT and The Plan) - to prohibit travel and access to the majority of the land in this country, to keep everyone in fear, to corral everyone into (more manageable) 15-minute cities and to convince everyone that by owning nothing - and going nowhere - they'll "be happy".
Though we've made headway against "their" anti-human plans, there's still much to do to halt them and to correct/rectify what's already been taken/destroyed and those actions must include removing A LOT of land from the government's and agencies' clutches.
I hope this isn’t just some BlackRock handover.
I'm remaining open to the possibilities with this.
100% people don't realize much of this land was collateralized for Chinese debt. That gave the chicoms access to the mineral rights etc. Obama went after a ton of land on tje red river in Oklahoma. Clinton locked up huge chunks in Utah that we then had to pay a Canadian company billions for minerals they could no longer exploit when he did that. Which likely a kickback scam.
Who's going to buy up that federal land?
Anyone with honesty knows there's only one answer: BLACKROCK!
Fed owns 41% of California. Diane feinstein sponsored and got the natural dessert protection act passed. Or whatever it was called. I'm sure anything that hag does is for reasons that are no good. I'm sure there's tons of oil gas and minerals under fed land.
I love state Forest land personally. Last year I went out to one of my go to hunting spots before season and discovered they had been cleaning brush with big equipment all spring and summer. Leaving all the big trees and making room for logging to come in. The whole place was going to be clear cut. I don't know where the $ from all that timber goes but it doesn't lower my taxes
Why?
You lolberts talk about "freedom". You know what freedom is? Being able to travel through my state and not see miles and miles of fences lining every parcel of land. It's being able to just drive out down a trail, park, go for a hike, camp, shoot guns, ride a horse, etc.
When I was on a roadtrip of the west, I never bothered with a hotel. I just drove off in to the desert and spent the night.
When I got to South Dakota, almost all of the land was privately owned. Fences everywhere. I couldn't find anywhere to spend the night.
When I went backpacking in Colorado, I picked a lake on some NFS land, and just.... went there. No permits. No fees. Unregulated wilderness.
THERE ARE ZERO PROS FOR NORMAL PEOPLE.
This is just faggy "GDP GOES UP" retarded nonsense.