Give every US citizen 2 acres of land.

Dog eat dog world. Big fish eat the little fish. To the victor goes the spoils.

 

Lol...til they finally realize there are no victors...except in their own perception

 

Lakefront please, mountain backdrop, near water/sewer and paved road as well.

Who do I send a list of addresses to?

 

That was a hundred years ago. Natives have rights and lawyers now. They were just granted back half the state of Oklahoma.

Its also worth noting that natives (everywhere, not specific to precolonial NA but certainly including precolonial NA) did that to eachother whether there were 'white people' involved or not. The only difference when the US Govt did it was it was violating contracts when it did it, which was, of course, wrong and evil, but no less so than every other tribal group murdering their neighbors for land grabs.

In any event, assuming 'white people' would be able to homestead on federal land in this (OP) scenario, they'll have just as much opportunity to 'have their land taken' as everyone else homesteading. Which, if we make the rules and regulation clear and concise enough, isn't going to happen to anyone who follows them.

 

I don't disagree with your suggestion. Putting unused land to good use seems okay to me.
That one statement perhaps concerns me a bit...human beings and rules don't relate well.

 

This is a good idea for 1820 not 2020. What exactly would I use this land for? I have a job in the tech industry and this land just sounds like a money drain for maintenance. Why not give the land to people who actually want it like farmers?

 

The rules and regulations would serve two purposes:
A- to prevent homesteaders from squandering what is objectively a valuable and limited resource (land)
B- to prevent this valuable and limited resource from further becoming monopolized by (floabt) 'the 1%' who are already well on their way to owning all of it and forcing us into further resource dependency and ultimately subjugation.

 

I agree, farmers should get priority for homesteading arable land.

 

My concern is that no matter if it's a white collar guy, a blue collar guy, or a street person...
they find a way to break the rules.
Even the white house guy found a way.

 

Don't give it to me. My .5 acres is already more than I want to mow.

 

The vast majority of federal land is of no value for agricultural pursuits. What is useful for grazing is already leased to producers through BLM (the original BLM ) The overwhelming majority of these acres are so unproductive it takes thousands of acres to make a living.

That said it’s a cool idea. I don’t think the federal government puts anything to better use than the private sector. You could argue national parks maybe, but private industry could probably do as good a job or better with management there as well.

The biggest problem with small 2 acre parcels is access. In my neck of the woods access is often county maintained “mile roads”. That’s kind of standard because that’s how townships are laid out—In 640 acre “sections” which are a square mile each. Some places have more roads, some places far less.

So if we parceled everything out in two acre sections and built roads on mile grids, the only way to subdivide so everyone had road access would be 33 foot wide, half mile long parcels. That’s not very practical. The other option is more “square” parcels leaving people in the middle no access. If you build a bunch of roads to make easy access pretty soon your 640 million acres becomes two thirds or half that amount because it’s all eaten up in roads and easements.

To compound the problem, much of forest service land is so rough and vertical building roads is nearly impossible. I’ve seen timber leases where purchased timber was left because it costs more to build a road to get to it than the timber is worth.

But it’s very possible someone can come up with solutions. I bet there are a lot of people who would enjoy their two acres a lot after living in a studio apartment.

 

Thats govt for you.

What do you suggest to fix it?

 

All great points.

 

Wait until all the people who got free land found out that you have to pay property taxes on land, even if it was free.

No such thing as a free lunch, kids.

 

I think it would better as a 'apply to homestead' sort of program rather than a 'dole it out to everyone' sort of program. The 'give everyone...' phrasing was just an introductory example to set context.

 

I would also like to see property taxes replaced with sales/import/luxury/etc taxes. But thats a whole 'nother thread.

 

I think that may be the most important question of all.
It seems we got plenty of rules that even the rule makers get away with breaking.
Perhaps in some cases they even designed them to be that way.
Our democracy may be the best so far, until someone figures out
how to bend the rules to the breaking point.
What is your opinion?

 

The words free, gift, give, entitled, deserve, owed, and a host of others are like magnets to attract the lower class. It would wind up being another dose of poison to their already weak minds.
I suspect most of this land would be very difficult to make a living on. Desert, dry, rocky, places like that don't lend themselves to much unless somebody comes along with vast finances to build something like Las Vegas. No average person could. I think that a fair amount of federal land is still open to mineral prospecting, and claims can be filed. I've not updated myself on this for a long time, so things probably have changed- but minerals are about the only thing some of these lands can offer. Homesteading however is not dead. While the original federal homestead law has expired, there numerous state and local homestead provisions. Most of these will be for building lots or small plots, and all will require development. Homesteading long ago also requires improvement and development, crops, etc over a period of years; it was not just give-away land.

 

I’d settle even for a half an acre. If it’s nearly free and I am not required to live there - why not?

 

Lol...you can have 2 acres over the Yellowstone caldera.

 

Good point about the difficulty of homesteading. My great grandfather homesteaded in Kansas. To survive he took a team and wagon up into Nebraska to cut wagon loads of fence posts to sell back in Kansas. As soon as he “proved up” he sold out and moved back to “civilization” in Missouri.

 

I believe homesteading does require you to make it your primary residence. And I think this should be similar to homesteading.

 

I see many problems, but if sincere, not the worst idea I've heard.

Why do you want to do this, what alternatives to this are being considered, and who would NOT be eligible?

 

Reparations discussion might be the intent of the thread (presented under different color), but not clear.

 

Yup.

Purpose, alternatives, restrictions, etc. must be articulated.