
Who gets to own the West? - pseudolus
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/22/us/wilks-brothers-fracking-business.html
======
deogeo
> Among the nation’s top landowners are Mr. Malone, with 2.2 million acres in
> New Mexico, Colorado and other states;

To give a sense of perspective, 2.2 million acres is a 94 km by 94 km square
(or 59 by 59 miles). Approximately equivalent to a single person owning all of
Cyprus or Puerto Rico.

Add two more people from that paragraph, and between the three of them, they
own more land than all of Israel.

~~~
bradleyjg
As a point of comparison in the other direction, the federal government owns
34.5 million acres in Idaho alone.

~~~
codyb
Isn’t the federal government at the very least supposed to embody the will of
it’s people?

I’ve no problem with my nation owning a lot of the land within its borders.

You certainly didn’t make any particular point on the subject but I’d rather
we own than one person owns.

~~~
bradleyjg
My point wasn’t so much about whether it’s right or wrong for private
landowners to own that much land. It’s that the western continental US is
really big (and empty) as compared to Cyprus or Israel.

~~~
codyb
Yea, well that’s absolutely a fact I feel acutely whenever I have to cross the
darned thing for work!

------
codingdave
While it isn't the most pressing issue in the article, a quote that jumped out
at me is: "For years, he assumed the road was public..."

Public land in the West isn't well-marked, and the difference in usage rights
between private, state, and federals lands is not well understood by the
general public, and sometimes not possible to know without recent data from
the managing organizations regarding current permits and claims on various
parcels. I've been thinking for years that I should write an app that reads
your location, looks up related data, and tells you exactly what land you are
on and what the allowed uses are. Especially out in the Western wilderness
areas when you may be crossing into different parcels and walking in and out
of various mining and mineral claims without even realizing it.

~~~
nsnick
That guy was using the road for access to public land. It doesn't necessarily
matter who owns the land under a road because the use of the road is supposed
to offer access rights. The problem is the guy doesn't have enough money to
take on billionaires to assert his access rights.

~~~
codingdave
Totally agree, and that is exactly the kind of thing I'd like to call out -
because land ownership is just the first step in knowing what you can and
cannot do on that land. There are many other factors.

Likewise, sometimes mining claimants believe they can keep people off their
claim, which isn't the legal reality - they have the rights to the materials
on the land, not exclusive access. Yet another reality of the West is that you
don't argue legalities with the prospector who is holding a gun on you telling
you to go away.

~~~
deogeo
> the prospector who is holding a gun on you telling you to go away.

That would qualify as assault [1], and _should_ result in the prospector going
to jail. But if the US legal system worked as it should, it would be almost
completely unrecognizable...

[1] [https://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2016/01/is-it-a-crime-
to-p...](https://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2016/01/is-it-a-crime-to-point-a-
gun-at-someone.html)

------
aurizon
Land taxes will curb the billionaires, make the land have a carrying cost

~~~
nabla9
Additionally everyone should have the right to roam.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam)

~~~
aurizon
Yes, I agree, the tax deduction is the fee that grants public access..

------
redm
I see this is as a problem with wealth inequality and not land per say. A
wealth gap leads to exaggerated levels of... you get the idea.

~~~
maxxxxx
At least we should have a law that people can pass through that land like they
have in Scotland.

~~~
Frost1x
We'd need Senate and House representatives that represent the bulk of citizens
in the US and not those catering to the ultra wealthy's whims.

For that, people would have to vote out a lot of existing politicians, pick
fresh faces, and cycle them out regularly enough to make it difficult for a
few private interests to buy them out. For some states there are incentives to
keep the status quo because it helps them (Kentucky and Mitch McConnell in
recent news come to mind), so those cases would be difficult to convince to
dump out their representative because they provide just enough support to
their states to appease residents.

Overall, there just doesn't seem to be momentum of voters to achieve this and
every attempt I've seen has failed. Some of this is likely due to the
orchestration/organization problem: it's a lot easier for a few thousand
billionaires to converge on shared ideas than hundreds of millions of non-
billionaries.

Instead, people shake their heads and go with the flow while complaining about
the state of affairs and ongoing trends that hurt their interests and growth.
The end result is the continued snowball of wealth inequality we see. I often
wonder if we've passed a critical point of recovery within our governmental
system to fix this issue but I certainly hope not.

~~~
comicjk
Cycling the legislators doesn't help at all - it's easy to make a farm team of
lackies, already "bought" before they're even elected. They can even be picked
according to ideology, so you don't have to pay them a dime.

[https://www.brookings.edu/research/re-engineering-
politician...](https://www.brookings.edu/research/re-engineering-politicians-
how-activist-groups-choose-our-politicians-long-before-we-vote/)

I don't know the solution to this problem, but it's not legislative turnover!

~~~
maxxxxx
Agreed. There is this call for term limits but think it would have the
opposite effect of what people want. If politics is not a long term career
then politicians need to be either independently wealthy or keep a foot in the
industry they worked in. That way it's pretty much guaranteed that they will
be beholden to that industry and aren't independent.

------
MaconBacon
I'm from Texas originally and in Texas, well, you just don't go on other
peoples land. But I grew up sharing a fence line with national grasslands and
I naturally developed an affinity for public land.

A few years ago I learned about Hawaiis public ownership of the beaches when a
friend took me to a locals secret spot in Kauai that we had to trespass to get
to. The trail to get there represented a battle between landowner (a golf
resort) and the trespassers, with big soil dumps to create steep descents and
thorny bushes vines planted to make it difficult (or at least painful) to get
to the cove. But on the other hand it was clear people had come through there
with shovels and machetes to clear the way so people could access that
beautiful beach. I imagine that battle is still being waged today.

Recently I moved to a state (Maine) with a more nuanced set of norms about
private land use (for recreation and hunting/fishing both), Before I didn't
realize there are places in the US where it's normal to access peoples private
land without permission. I took a hunters safety course here and one of the
things they reinforce over and over again is to get permission to hunt land.
They even gave us booklet containing templates for getting signed permission
to hunt land. It was unfathomable to me that you would hunt on someones land
without permission. They also taught us that times are changing here and in a
couple of generations this whole culture of public use of private lands will
probably go away, so it’s important to be respectful so as not to hasten its
demise.

I’ve come around to believing that nature ought to be seen and land should be
used (in a respectful way). Just to be able to go on a hike and be in nature
is a special kind of liberty.

Those Wilks brothers in the article represent a culture of fear and paranoia
that is born of certain ideologies (religion, neoconservatism, etc). I imagine
they can’t see the world in any other way. That Justin Wilks thinks recreating
on his 300,000 acres is somehow equivalent to him camping on your front yard
shows you how petty and slighted even billionaires can be.

~~~
ccou
I grew up in Sweden with extensive Freedom to roam rights where you can visit
all the forest and lakes. But my view has gone in the opposite direction, as
someone who loves being in nature I thought the idea was wonderful and I have
spent so much time in nature picking mushrooms and nuts. It has been great for
me and I respect nature and try to leave it as I found it.

Unfortunately I can't say the same for other people. I just keep seeing more
and more trash around pretty lakes because people got there and have a party
and just leave all the trash. I found piles of junk in the forest just to
learn that people just dump it there because it's easy and free. The problem
is that it's basically impossible to enforce the Freedom to roam rules about
not leaving trash or cutting down trees and so on. Basically it is just free
for all to dump trash and behave like people want because of the lack of
enforcement.

At this point I really wish to own a forest but not in Sweden, I want to own
it in a country where I have real property right were I can people away from
it because I don't want them to ruin it. Sure I don't need 100,000 of acres
but I still want to own forest and be able to keep people from using it
without permission.

~~~
lotsofpulp
A better, longer term, structural solution to this is investing in education
and fostering a culture of environmental awareness from childhood. Instead, in
the US, we keep defunding the EPA and denouncing scientists sacrificing their
lives to appease the needs of rich people to increase the value of their
equity.

~~~
davemp
Do you think people don’t know that dumping and littering in nature is bad?
There is an inherent selfishness at play, especially with little threat of
punishment or shame.

------
wazoox
What's not to love in the return of feudalism?

------
fzeroracer
The irony of billionaires who made their money through fracking saying they
have a 'responsibility to the land' is I hope not lost on anyone.

In either case, we're seeing a lot of previously public property essentially
turn private and the results never seem to work out that well. From beaches
being closed to retirees being pushed out of their homes, this sort of large-
scale property ownership shifting seems to result in a net negative for the
local community.

~~~
dillonmckay
What beaches are being closed?

~~~
nsnick
Martin's Beach, closed by Vinod Khosla.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/technology/california-
bea...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/01/technology/california-beach-access-
khosla.html)

~~~
ericd
One datapoint doesn't make a trend, though.

~~~
catacombs
Three occurrences make a trend. And rich people buying up land near beaches
and closing to the public has been happening more frequently that past few
years.

------
arkades
I didn’t see this addressed in the article:

How much of this is snapping up land that will be a key value once rising
water levels displace coastals?

This strikes me as a much stronger play than just buying up some land.

~~~
nsnick
We are expecting 3-9 inches of sea level rise over the next century. Boise is
at 2730 feet. The mountains where they are buying this land is even higher.
What they are hedging is population growth and the continued migration west.
Also people leaving California as it becomes too expensive. Buying land in the
far north could be a global warming play as that area will be more temperate
in future.

~~~
catacombs
> Buying land in the far north could be a global warming play as that area
> will be more temperate in future.

Agreed. And it's a smart move. Buy up the land for pennies (on a billionaire
scale) and sell the land back to developers for a huge profit when more and
more people look for new homes in the area.

------
lota-putty
> Who gets to own the lands?

Common folks, hard-working, meek, idealistic folks; only when they're willing
enough.

Middle class is the backbone of the world.

------
zw123456
Woody Guthrie is rolling over in his grave.

------
jshaqaw
I am amused by the comment that owning a private landholding will protect them
should we hit a time of political and climate driven unrest. Yeah - a paper
land deed will definitely stave off the masses hordes in the event of a
desperate apocalypse. This is the right wing paranoid delusional equivalent of
the Silicon Valley billionaires who dream of never dying by uploading their
brains into computers circling Mars.

~~~
ovi256
You just grant right of abode to a number of young men that know how to handle
weapons. They'll be very motivated to defend it - and you! - from the hordes,
especially given their families are residing there too.

There, you just reinstated feudalism, with barely any extra steps.

~~~
arethuza
Why would the people you hire care what you think once society has collapsed
to the point where money and contracts are worthless?

~~~
jshaqaw
Exactly. The praetorian guard become the real emperor of Rome or the Shogun
exiles the emperor to play ceremonial roles in Kyoto. Except in this case
without the need to maintain a popular figure of divine mandate for public
purposes, the guards just shoot the former billionaires. In the end there is
no hedge against death or total societal breakdown no matter how rich you are.

