From the Congressional Research Service: Federal Land Ownership: Overview and Data

In light of the events at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge here's everything you need to know about the lands owned by the national government. It is produced by the Congressional Research Service which is described by the Library of Congress as follows:

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) works exclusively for the United States Congress, providing policy and legal analysis to committees and Members of both the House and Senate, regardless of party affiliation. As a legislative branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS has been a valued and respected resource on Capitol Hill for more than a century. CRS is well-known for analysis that is authoritative, confidential, objective and nonpartisan. Its highest priority is to ensure that Congress has 24/7 access to the nation’s best thinking.

- Click here for the report.


Here's a chunk from the report's summary:

The federal government owns roughly 640 million acres, about 28% of the 2.27 billion acres of land in the United States. Four agencies administer 608.9 million acres of this land: the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and National Park Service (NPS) in the Department of the Interior (DOI), and the Forest Service (FS) in the Department of Agriculture. Most of these lands are in the West and Alaska. In addition, the Department of Defense administers 14.4 million acres in the United States consisting of military bases, training ranges, and more. Numerous other agencies administer the remaining federal acreage. The lands administered by the four land agencies are managed for many purposes, primarily related to preservation, recreation, and development of natural resources. Yet each of these agencies has distinct responsibilities.

. . . Throughout America’s history, federal land laws have reflected two visions: keeping some lands in federal ownership while disposing of others. From the earliest days, there has been conflict between these two visions. During the 19th century, many laws encouraged settlement of the West through federal land disposal. Mostly in the 20th century, emphasis shifted to retention of federal lands. Congress has provided varying land acquisition and disposal authorities to the agencies, ranging from restricted to broad.

. . . Numerous issues affecting federal land management are before Congress. They include the extent of federal ownership, and whether to decrease, maintain, or increase the amount of federal holdings; the condition of currently owned federal infrastructure and lands, and the priority of their maintenance versus new acquisitions; the optimal balance between land use and protection, and whether federal lands should be managed primarily to benefit the nation as a whole or instead to benefit the localities and states; and border control on federal lands along the southwest border.

The national government owns all the land in red on this map

One of the points made in the section on federalism - where we try to understand the conflict between the national and state governments - is that some of this conflict exists because the national government owns a lot of land - especially in the west.

At one point it own the bulk of all land across the nation because it either bought it or claimed it. This isn't the case in Texas - notice the lack of red - because Texas was its own nation for a brief period of time. This means that Texas owns the bulk of its land, unless it sold some to the national government to create a park or a fort.

The following story discusses conflict in the west over whether the national government should start selling the land to the private sector.

- Click here for it.

Its dangerous to get in the way Houston

The Houston Chronicle has a fun photo spread on some old towns that were swallowed up by an ever expanding Houston.

It helps explain many of the names of neighborhoods and highways around the city.

It reminds me that one of the many aspects of municipal government that we did not get into this semester was extra territorial jurisdiction, which refers to the rules related to annexation - something Houston has done since its inception in 1836.

Some related stories:

- Annexation Plan - Houston.
- Control in the ETJ.
- Katy plans to talk with Houston about annexation.

380 agreements

The article linked to in the previous post mentions 380 agreements. Here's my best at describing what these are and what they tell us about state and local policy making. I've added the appropriate links so you can find out where they are described more fully and what the issues surrounding them tend to be.

The simple description is that they are allowances for Texas cities to enter into agreements with private entities in order to provide assistance for economic development.

The are named after Chapter 380 of the Texas Local Government Code.

- Click here for a presentation by the Texas City Attorney Association about the agreements.
- Click here for the actual code.

Here's a description from the Comptroller's Office:

Chapter 380 of the Local Government Code authorizes municipalities to offer incentives designed to promote economic development such as commercial and retail projects. Specifically, it provides for offering loans and grants of city funds or services at little or no cost to promote state and local economic development and to stimulate business and commercial activity.

In order to provide a grant or loan, a city must establish a program to implement the incentives. Before proceeding, cities must review their city charters or local policies that may restrict a city's ability provide a load or grant.

There is a comparable agreement - 381 - that allows counties to offer similar incentives.

You can also find a good run description by clicking on the website of the International Business District. From what I can see the district appears to be promoting 380's to individuals and business who seek to work with them.

The City of Houston has entered into over a dozen 380 agreements since they were established - no more than six can be funded at one time.

- Click here for a list of them.

The Parker Administration has entered into a great number of these - we had a question in class about her tenure in office and what she has accomplished. She makes the argument that these agreements have increased the economic vitality of certain areas of town and the quality of life there as well.

That doesn't mean they have not been controversial. One of the agreements was with the developer who helped build a Walmart in the Heights. Critics argued that the largest corporation in the US did not need a local tax abatement, but it got one anyway.

Here are a few related links that ought to help fill in gaps. One of the areas where I am deficient is in discussing land use policy on the state and local level. Hopefully this helps fill in some of that gap.

- Residents don't like details of 380 agreement.
- Mayor Parker defends incentives to lure development.
- Comment of the day.
- That mysterious 380 agreement.