While true, I feel like government owned land doesn't really count.

Why?

Primarily because it seems logical that the government would own the largest amount of land in a country like the United States. No individual or institution would ever come close to the sheer amount of land the Federal Government obtained by treaty or by conquest.

Not who you're replying to, but the US Govt does own a lot of land that wouldn't be useful to anyone else. Some rural and desert plots sell for less than $1000/acre.

While that may be true in some cases, the US Govt also owns a huge amount of productive land that are today used under lease for grazing and other purposes, or could be used by others for purposes that the US Government forbids.

I am not sure what the exact break down of useful vs non-useful is, but I know most of the land in my state that is owned by the government could be used for other things.

Keep in mind to we are not just talking Bureau of Land Management, but also Park Service, All Federal Agencies many of which have abandoned, or under used facilities in many towns and cities through out the US, Military who owns large sections of land that are non-active bases, etc etc etc

Several states have even attempted various law suits because the federal government is preventing economic development of the land

Yeah, in some states, the majority of land is owned by the Federal Government. (Nevada and Idaho for example)

Sadly voters cannot yet influence how non-governmental owners choose to use the significant land holdings. And increasingly voters cannot even overcome the outsized influence of rich individuals and companies and their lobbies on how government owned land gets used.

Sure they can - all land is controlled by land use regulations, zoning regulations and other laws and regs. Your local elected officials are in charge of changes to such things. By all means, vote for the people getting into those offices, and get engaged with local governance. Especially in the more rural areas, where the large land holdings tend to fall, there will be a smaller electorate, and the local community can have a significant impact on local decisions.

For federal land, significant projects are open for public comments, and they absolutely respond to the people who live in the area. I've seen numerous development projects proposed by the rich get shot down after the community got involved through the comment process.

Hopefully, voters can NEVER influence how private land owners choose to use their land holdings.

Do we live in the same country? Do you actually want other people to tell you what you have to do with your private property? I suspect that if you were a land holder being told what you had to do with your land you would be rather miffed.

I just don't understand how a citizen of the US living under the US Constitution comes to the conclusion that they should have authority to tell other people what they can do with their property.

For starters, I don't think you should be allowed to dump toxic chemicals on your "private" property, because it could poison the natural environment and/or groundwater sources that others share.

People dump toxic chemicals on their property every day. Pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, and fertilizers are all toxic. Hell, we even pay farmers to do this.

There are other ways to mitigate this problem than giving voters the authority to dictate how a property owner uses their land.

> People dump toxic chemicals on their property every day. Pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, and fertilizers are all toxic. Hell, we even pay farmers to do this.

It seems obvious that ForHackernews wasn't talking about things like the chemicals you've described.

The point I so coarsely was trying to make is, the impact is the same whether it is nondescript industrial sludge or sanctioned chemicals. Permitting one while demonizing the other for the sake of some control over property owners is asinine at best and a power grab at worst. We already have laws and penalties specific to the dumping of some chemicals that are effective regardless of who the property owner is. We would not need additional laws that apply specifically to property owners.

> Sadly voters cannot yet influence how non-governmental owners choose to use the significant land holdings.

What exactly do you mean by this? Private land is for private use.

Sorry, I should've clarified my thinking. Mostly I'm concerned with things like waste from fracking, water misuse or pollution, and soil depletion.

On the government side it amazes me we can't get / keep lead, mercury, and other toxins out of land and resources we collectively own. Dilution also looks like a very expensive and increasingly ineffective answer to the pollution problem.

Voters shouldn't be able to influence private landowning anyways since it violates private property rights. The whole point of owning land is so you can decide what to do with the land. If you want to decide what to do with someone's private property then work a deal with them instead.

Of course government can decide private property law. Slaves used to be private property. And you can't do whatever you want once you own a piece of land, see environmental laws etc.