The Los Angeles Times, in the socio-economic basket case known as California, dismissed the idea outright in an unsigned editorial, declaring the idea to be an affront against unfairly maligned federal supremacy. The Denver Post, meanwhile, offered last month a more evenhanded assessment, suggesting that the cost to the state of maintaining public lands — in the form of fire-fighting, forestry, and more — is too high to be worth it.
Why Now?
Federal control of lands within states has long been a source of contention between states and the federal government.
More
Federal control of lands within states has long been a source of contention between states and the federal government.
More
1 comment:
I'm on board with this.
Post a Comment