Land Sale of The Century

• Share

(3 of 10)

The irony is that both Watt and his opponents are right. There are strong arguments for conserving unspoiled tracts. There are equally compelling reasons why the U.S. should dispose of lands for which it has little or no use, particularly if these parcels can be put to better use by private owners.

Foremost among the Administration's justifications for the land sell-off is its revenue-producing potential. By White House estimates, the five-year program will yield $17 billion. Says Watt: "What better way to raise some of the revenues that we so badly need than by selling some of the land and buildings that we don't need?" Bruce Selfon, acting executive director of the Property Review Board, which is preparing the list of parcels for sale, says, "It is the best way we can think of to relieve the debt because it doesn't hurt anyone. It doesn't raise taxes. It doesn't cut anyone's budget. It just raises money."

The sale, boosters claim, might even suggest to other countries that the U.S. is serious about putting its economic house in order. "Companies in a situation like this have often turned to liquidating assets," says Republican Senator Charles Percy of Illinois, a leading supporter of the plan on Capitol Hill. "Why should the U.S. Government be any different?"

The Administration believes that a significant portion of Government-owned land, excluding parks and wilderness areas, would be more productive if privately owned. The Government currently owns 740 million acres, or 32.7% of the land in the U.S. Most of this land is west of the Mississippi. It also owns 405,147 buildings and $52.3 billion worth of structures such as dams, bridges, roads, irrigation projects and monuments. Much of this property is used little or not at all, and costs the Government far more to keep and maintain than it is worth. Steven Hanke, a former member of the President's Council of Economic Advisers, notes that grazing permits, which last year produced $24.9 million in revenues, came nowhere near meeting the $58.5 million it cost the U.S. to manage the grassland and cover payments to local governments in lieu of taxes. The result, in effect, was a taxpayer subsidy to ranchers of $33.6 million. "With public ownership," Hanke says, "politicians and bureaucrats are never directly and solely responsible for the consequences of their decisions."

Finally, the sell-off is appealing to the Administration because it is a way of scaling back the influence of the Federal Government, which is a philosophic objective of President Reagan. Says Annelise Anderson of the Office of Management and Budget: "We want to sell properties as a way of coming to grips with exactly what size the Federal Government ought to be."