By C&R FRES
Los Alamos

Ref: ‘We Love Public Lands Rally’ To Protest Proposed Public Land Sales & National Monument Reductions Monday, June 23.

And yet, last year when the BLM proposed transferring (via a lopsided trade arrangement) nearly 2,000 acres of BLM land to Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo, practically no one made a peep.

If that transfer is completed, there will be nearly 2,000 acres of once publicly accessible land in northern NM that will be FOREVER cut off from public access. Unless, maybe, just maybe, you are allowed by the Pueblo to pay to access it as part of a Pueblo resort, golf course, RV park, truck stop, sports facility, recreation area, etc., or it could simply be utilized for tribal housing development.

Which, oh by the way, these scenarios may possibly not require payment of the typical taxes that a non-Pueblo entity/business would be paying to generate revenue for the County, State, and Federal governments.

The main differences?

• Joe Biden, Deb Haaland (BLM director, from NM, Pueblo ties)  involved so that must make it ok?
• Definitely not opposed by President Biden and the then director of the BLM.
• No conflict of interest?
• Very little transparency.
• Gaslighting the public to make it look like a good deal for everyone.
• Occurring in Rio Arriba County vs Santa Fe County
• Not seen or presented as an “attack” on our public lands.
• No protests to demonstrate any sort of opposition.
• Very little publicity… appeared in the LA Daily Post (link), but not in the Rio Grande Sun and definitely NOT front page in the Santa Fe New Mexican.

And one last takeaway… one that no one seems to be mentioning, may have come up at Monday’s rally…

IF, the proposed lands do go up for sale, what is to keep the 20+ NM Pueblos, most of which are already flush with money from a wide wide array of business ventures and a constant flow of government (taxpayer dollars), from buying the land?

Then most likely it will…

1. a) not be freely accessible to the general public.
2. b) may not generate any revenue to the non-tribal government entities, and
3. c) could possibly justify more expenditures of taxpayer funding flowing to the Pueblos to cover security, fencing, development, access, etc.

I’m not certain if they’d be subject to property taxes or any other taxes that a non-Pueblo purchaser might be, but this scenario could possibly backfire and be a loss to both the public access, and other than the outright sale amount (which may be the ultimate goal), May have a negative impact on long term expected revenue for the county, state, and federal governments.

Take a look at the area of NNM where the Jicarilla Apache tribe has already bought many large ranches in order to connect their land in Dulce to the huge property they previously outbid the State of NM for east of Chama. Now operating as the “Lodge at Chama”.

How is that working out with regard to free or low cost public access and the county, state and federal governments’ tax revenues?

I think of a piece of national park property being sold to a private firm and the property is developed for a wilderness lodge, maybe like one you’d find at a park in Alaska. I’m not sure if the park service runs those or a private entity. The sale generates significant revenue, the lodge pays property taxes, sales taxes, creates jobs (and additional tax revenue), and provides a “luxury” service to tourists. Could this work? Maybe, as long as there is still free or low cost public access to the surrounding property. Most likely, “NO TRESPASSING” or “GUESTS ONLY” signage would appear on all property that is purchased.

Definitely need to think this one through from every possible angle.

I hear there is a smaller scale scenario on the table in Utah, maybe see how that plays out.

Hmmmm … All of this is very interesting, and may not result in the expected outcomes.