Spoke with the Treasurer of my local county to confirm...

.GOV pays no taxes

They use our local roads, water, sewer, schools et al...

Most .GOV operates as a Buisness.

USCG here has barracks for their employees... The employees use our local roads, water, sewer, schools et al...

The National Park Service charges a fee to visit... That is a business for sure.

They occupy local land of extremely high value and pay zero for it... while the rest of us... Business or Private... are saddled with EVER INCREASING PROPERTY TAXES.

Sure, but they'll just raise taxes to do it. So, no.

They're already stealing your money at gun point. If they have to pay, they'll just steal more.

Raise Federal taxes on all... BUT city residents (where most people live) will pay the most... THEN reimburses counties with Public Land (rural)... kinda thing.

If Yellowstone paid real and honest taxes for the acres they own... Wyoming and Montana residents would pay far less Real Estate tax and have MUCH MUCH better roads, sewer, water, schools et al

Or just cut out federal grants for infrastructure and let the counties fix their own bridges and roads off the tax dollars the local municipalities collect from them.

Do the benefits to the local economy of a military base or a park that draws as many visitors as Yellowstone outweigh the burden of maintaining roads and other infrastructure?

Would the local economy. be better off without them?

That is not the point at all... National Parks are NOT going away... neither are DOD bases... if they did... the home builders would gobble up the land instantly... AND PAY REAL ESTATE TAXES.

Uncle Sugar is the richest entity in America and he pays zero taxes to locals.

We need to stop settling for breadcrumbs... "My Dream Catcher Business makes money because it is next to Grand Teton"

NO ONE SHOULD BE EXEMPT FROM PAYING TAXES...

https://www.doi.gov/pilt

Exactly, the govs money comes out of our pockets. And in doing so, lots of that money evaporates before it’s used or is re distributed.

You don't think any DOD bases have closed in our lifetime?

Many have, and in every case local and state governments, senators and congressmen fought closures in their locations tooth and nail because of the economic benefits of having them.

Your dream catcher business, or restaurant, or grocery store or job only exists because Grand Teton is there.

Woot... Woot... " PILT payments totaling $549.4 million"

52,110,996.53 acres in National Parks...

That comes out to $0.11 per acre...

A 100 acre spread in Colorado pays more or less than $11 a year?

Anyone help me out here?

1,000 acre spread would be only $110?

You get the government you vote for.

You don't seem to understand that every federal dollar comes from a taxpayer or goes on the deficit.

Raising taxes is not the answer. Ever.

Transfer of money from city to rural is my point...

Blue to Red...

Jesus Christ people. Here is the link for PILT (Payment in Lieu of Taxes) that the Federal goverment pays out. On this link you can search by state/fiscal year etc, to see how much in payments they've made.


https://pilt.doi.gov/counties.cfm

CLICK THE F'KING link

https://pilt.doi.gov/counties.cfm

I know... I quoted it above...

In the area I live in we have USFS, Mo dept of consv. ,US park service,US corps of Engineers, Lots of Untaxed gov acres, Years back we had a school superintendant, who took on USFS, and got them to pay some percentage of real estate tax, as they are one of the largest land owners in the county, Some counties in missouri qualify but most do not,, I think this was Shannon co,

That's not true. The feds pay PILT to each state with federal land which goes to the counties and towns.
PILT

If I pay $500 an acre...

And .GOV pays (PILT) a nickle...

You do not see a problem?

Run the damn math...

.GOV holds the finest Real Estate in America and locals get dicked.

Dummy, your math and ability to talk out of your ass is on par with Wyoming's governor.

PILT pays significantly better...click the link and educate yourself.

marton

Run your PILT on this one...

Link

Then run it AGAIN once it is locally owned by a citizen...

... and not Uncle Fugging Sugar.

Point being... fair is fair...

If Uncle Sugar paid FAIR TAXES... local Real Estate Taxes would be much lower on citizens.

$2.67 an acre (PILT) is a direct quote from your link...

Do you pay more than $2.67 an acre?

Those government employees do pay sales tax and gasoline taxes and would probably not be adding to the local economy if there wasn't a military post close buy. It's my understanding that Iowa with very little military presence pays $1 in federal taxes and gets 90 cents back. Folks like you probably get $1 for every $1 in taxes because you have a military post close by.

Now "non profit" hospitals. That's a real beef with me.

kwg

You have much more faith that taxes wouldn't remain the same than I do, even if your argument of fair taxes came true.

If I owned a 1,000 acre spread in the Yellowstone valley... I would be happy to pay ONLY $2,670 a year.

More dummy math I reckon.

Yeah, PILT is a joke.

But it allows counties with large areas of public land to have a semblance of county government. Without it, I doubt they'd even have jails, police or emergency services.

It's BS.

PILT is a pittance of value...

Bread crumbs to the locals.

Pure CRAP

Martons were paying 31 cents an acre...is $2.67 an acre in pilt more or less per acre than what they were paying?

If I owned the Marton ranch I would be paying 31 cents an acre, which is less than PILT.

Any more math problems I can help you with?

[quote=CashisKing]PILT is a pittance of value...

Bread crumbs to the locals.

Pure CRAP[/quote

Then ag taxes arent even bread crumbs to the locals...31 cents an acre won't pay for a lightbulb in a street lamp.

Pure bullchit.

Oh, and Natrona county receives about 4 million a year in pilt funding...pretty big pile of bread crumbs.

NEITHER NUMBER IS VALID... THAT IS THE POINT

Cash, I've had a front row seat for a few base closures, worked on the EISs and cleanup of BRAC bases. Both of those processes have a lot of public meetings and public involvement. Not a single community has said "that's right, get your feeloading asses out of here and give us the land back." It's the opposite:

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA435331

I grew up next to Ft Belvoir, knew several families who's main breadwinner had a job on post. Go to any military base and watch the stream of civilian employees pouring throught the gate in the morning. Every one of those respresents a person with a job who can buy a house, pay property taxes, shop in local stores, and eat in local restaurants. If you own a construxtion company, you built some of the houses they live in. If you own a roofing company, you've re-roofed some of those houses. And those jobs wouldn't exist without the base.

In Colorado we have a big tourist economy. Just the top three tourist activites (skiing, hunting, fishing) contribute about $4 1/2 billion a year to the state economy. All of the ski resorts are on national forest land and almost all the hunting and fishing is on public land. Take that away and all of the businesses that support all of those visitors evaporate.

Federal property can be a burden but in most cases, especially military bases they're not a burden, they're an economic engine.

Agree...

I am not asking any bases to close... or stay open... That is logistic and strategic decision making.

What I am saying is that if Uncle Suger pays his fair share to local... Local real estate taxes will be less for all citizens and businesses.

If Uncle Sugar pays $1 an acre... and I pay $1,000 per acre... the assumption is that I get $999 of benefit by having Sugar as my neighbor.

The citizens of Natrona county are better off with the feds owning the Marton ranch...about 8.5 times better off just from a tax value standpoint. Now factor in the increased outdoor recreational value of 35k additional acres from hunting, fishing, camping, etc...

It's a no brainer.

That's fugging LIE. And you are a shameless liar.

I have been in on ground floor county govt that got PILT. And compared to property taxes, which county govts run on, PILT was just pennies on the dollar. NOT more money than property taxes by any stretch of the imagination.

Private property is much more than just raw land value. The county taxes houses and improvements on private land. There are no houses and improvements allowed on public land owned by the Forest Circus or BLM, and therefore can't be taxed.

What if I offered $3 per acre... they would be even better off.

I'll pay $3k in taxes for a 1,000 spread in the Yellowstone Valley. Anyone else?

Pure manipulative .GOV bullchit.

You're also not answering my original question: Do the economic benefits of having a base in your community outweigh the negatives you've cited.

So far every single community that's had a base close has answered that question with a "yes."

Siskiyou Co's 6,400 sq miles (size of Hawaii) is 60% Fed owned. For this now, we get about 2 million annual PILT payment. I'm sorry to say that the original PILT formula was slashed to bare bones by Reagan in 1982. If I got the math right...that is 50 cents an acre. The private landowners (timber holdings in the county) are paying on average...10 to 20 times that amount...plus an additional tax on timber harvested. Be careful who your neighbors are, the USFS is not a good neighbor. Two years ago, an uncontrolled forest fire on Fed land was threatening me and neighbors property. I quickly got permission to act from the neighbors and cut a dozer line from Fed boundary to the highway...never once actually getting the Cat on Fed property. Wind shifted thankfully, but not before some uniformed dickhead informed me I could be arrested for interfering (?) and asked me why we hadn't evacuated when ordered to. They have recently changed the law though, and now you can defend your property legally.

Read the article dummy...private ag land here is taxed at 31cents an acre.

PILT pays $2.67 an acre for that exact piece of ground if it were owned by the feds.

Those are facts...end of story.

Ask him exactly who collects the fees for oil and gas, grazing and timber allotments on govt land...

Hint: It ain't the county.

Yet, PILT is the socialistic savior contrived by a federal govt that has no constitutional authority to be the largest landowner in U.S.

Cray-Cray, huh?

I don't know about anyone else, but our local government would just take the extra money and piss it away. Any extra funds would go toward empire building and fat contracts for friends and family. Meanwhile, the federal government (regardless of party) would just print more money and reduce the value of a dollar even further. GD

If it was classified as ag land, absolutely that's what you would pay. The feds pay 26k in taxes.

$2.67 x 2 = $5.34 per acre...

Hell... I am feeling generous

I'll double the amount... $5,340 a year in taxes for a 1,000 acre spread in the Yellowstone...

The federal government absolutely has the authority to be the largest landowner. Pull your head out of your ass and think on your own. You'd be better off than parroting some BS you read on the 'net from your favorite conspiracy website, or something you heard from the bar stool next to you.

Got it...

If I could own a National Park at $0.11 an acre... I would.

Set up a Dream Catcher stand at the gate... to cover the ANNUAL TAX BURDEN.

That's dumb, your taxes would only be 31 cents an acre, and after buying those thousand acres, you wouldn't even be able to afford that.

If you had the money to purchase a park, the last thing you'd be worried about are the taxes. Well other than having something to bitch about at the local coffee shop.

Fact.

All discussions of "Government Money" should begin with the realization that gov't produces nothing. It has no money that it did not take from a working taxpayer. I often think that replacing "Federal' or "State" money with the phrase "my neighbor's money" would make folks think differently. Should we levy another tax on the people of FL to offset local revenue lost by not taxing Yellowstone? Budgets from counties, states and DC are already somewhat comingled so, on some level, we already do. Also, most of the benefits of the land are already enjoyed by local folks. I vote no.








'

How about you show us all the exact constitutional authority the federal govt has to own vast tracts of land?

I can show you this though:

THE PROPERTY CLAUSE, Art 4, Sect 3, Cl 2
The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

THE ENCLAVE CLAUSE, Art 1, Sect 8, Cl 17
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;–

Blah blah blah, you're a broken record...like I said do some thinking on your own. It's not hard to find.

Instead of making 66,000 posts and wasting your time...try using that computer for something to improve your knowledge.

Access to facts has never been easier and yet you still refuse to try.

Sorry, won't spoon feed you your mush...

James Wilson, stated:


Did you get that? Many people claim that congress was vested with powers to do whatever it damn well pleased, in other words, to pass the laws that it sees fit to pass for whatever reason, or no reason, because the people, from which all power flows, elected them to pass laws, by majority vote, and that if there was any conflict with the constitution, the unlimited powers of congress would trump all other considerations. Many federalists today, claim that congress is the most powerful entity in the land because they can overcome executive vetoes and Supreme Court decisions by obtaining enough votes to overturn them.

The proponents of federal land control like to cite a Supreme Court decision which gave congress power “without limitation” to do what it wants with land. United States v. City of San Francisco, 310 U.S. 16, 29 (1940).

But, Wilson is saying that is not the case. Congress does not have unlimited powers with land or anything else. Congress cannot exceed the enumerated powers granted to it by the supreme law of the land, the constitution. The only way congress can get around those enumerated powers is by constitutional amendment which requires ratification by 2/3 of the states.

Under the Property Clause, congress had power given to it to “dispose” of property that it had acquired through treaty. It had a right to retain property for the purpose of fulfilling its limited mission as enumerated, i.e, forts, docks, navies, armies, post offices, etc. But, millions of acres of land owned by the federal government is in direct opposition to Madison’s statement, “few and defined”.

Any other "theories" you were going to plagarize for us today?

Have any of your own thoughts on the matter?

Didn't think so....

I think the answer to that problem is to not pay politicians and those that want to work for the government, not one red cent.. for anything they do...

won't be around to charge us all of those taxes...

sort of erasing the current way... a new way will start again...

or look at California...

the state charges the counties and cities taxes... and the cities and counties charge the State Taxes,.

that's fair.. but then, see how that is working out.... they go overboard a lot with taxes.. even to each other...

Oh, I've said my thoughts and posted what the constitution says about it.

Yet, here we are waiting on you to show us where the US Constitution entitles the federal govt to be the largest land owner in the US....

Where is that?

There goes that damned pesky Constitution of the United States again.

Who was the damned idiot that thought it a good idea to prevent local or state .gov from taxing the Fed?

Can't we just abolish that pesky piece of paper?

Right at your fingertips...

And the facts and truth are right at yours. But being the good little fedgov commie you are, you turn a blind eye.

Correct, and unlike you, I'm smart enough to know the federal government has the right to own all the property they want.

Especially churches

That's your wet dream. But you can't seem to support it with facts.

Buzz... you seem obsessed with telling folks how smart you are and how dumb they are. Got it.

Do you pay more that $0.11 an acre in property taxes?

Do you think Uncle Sugar should pay or PILT at least the same amount as you on an equal Real asset?

LOCAL taxpayers would like lower property taxes with better services... do you deny this.

It is OK to answer me... without call yourself a genius again.

Frankly it is kinda laughable.

You voted to have the government we have now? I doubt that.

Sure I can...go look at a [bleep] map for your first clue.

Then let the real thinking kick in...article IV might help you in your quest for knowledge.

You do realize that many buildings that house Federal agencies are not federally owned correct? I work for a bureau within the DOI and we lease space in buildings that were owned by a local college and even the city. If taxes aren’t being paid by the entities that actually own the buildings, then take it up with them. We also pay a crap ton in local utilities and all of us own a house and vehicles we pay taxes on. It’s the same way when I was in the military and lived off base, I paid property taxes, tags for my car and personal property taxes as well depending on the state.

Oh, and the federal government recently ordered a study to see which jobs can go remote work, so the amount of office space they lease can be cut down. For many areas they want to cut lease spaces at, I can see it hurting the local economy.

Why do you find it appropriate for PILT to pay nearly 8.5 times more than a private citizen for the same exact assett?

I have no problem with PILT, no problem with 31 cents an acre for ag land, and no problem with paying my own property taxes.

Must suck to be a broke dick bitching about taxes all day long...

Once again, you lie. Why are you such a liar to support your socialistic politics?

It's really very basic knowledge that PILT is a small fraction of income to local govt vs actual property taxes. I know this because I've been involved at a local level where most of the county is BLM or Forest Circus land.

Why lie about it?

People above your pay grade seem to disagree with you as well.

https://www.risch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2021/4/western-senators-introduce-more-pilt-act

Western Senators Introduce MORE PILT Act
April 1, 2021

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Jim Risch and Mike Crapo (both R-Idaho) joined U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) in introducing the Making Obligations Right by Enlarging Payments in Lieu of Taxes Act, or MORE PILT Act. This bill would direct the Secretary of Interior to conduct a study on federal lands eligible for PILT payments to determine the actual property value of the land and the foregone property tax revenues that counties would have otherwise received.

“Every single county in Idaho relies on the PILT program to fund critical county services and compensate for the tax base lost to federal lands,” said Risch. “Unfortunately, these payments do not begin to make up for the actual revenue loss rural communities sustain. This legislation is a critical step to ensuring counties are made whole.”

“PILT payments are critical to rural Idaho counties that rely on the funds for essential services like roads and law enforcement,” said Crapo. “The MORE PILT Act would better reflect the value of land in Idaho owned by the federal government, in turn meeting the ongoing needs of those counties. The pandemic has stretched local budgets even thinner, and continued improvement on the PILT program will help these areas obtain a more sustainable funding stream.”

“Without a property tax base, and with woefully inadequate PILT payments, Western states and communities struggle to fund their schools, infrastructure, and vital community services,” said Lee. “This bill will help ensure that PILT payments more accurately reflect the lands’ value, so that the citizens of our public lands states have the means they need to both survive and thrive.”

Background: States, counties, and local governments are not able to collect property taxes on public lands in their jurisdictions. The Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program was established in 1977 to provide funding to offset the absence of property tax revenue. PILT payments have historically been a small fraction of what local governments would otherwise generate through property taxes, leaving rural communities in Western states with limited funds for essential infrastructure and services.

Learn to read... 🤡

PILT vs private revenue

You seem stuck on that one instance, and it sure disagrees with everything else I've ever learned about PILT.

You got that area of the Constitution that allows the fedgovs to own more land than anyone else in the US yet?

I didn't think so.

Article IV and Supreme court decisions...I'm not your secretary.

Ag land in most states have reduced tax rates, and for reasons that are obvious to anyone with a single firing brain cell...and I agree with the rates.

PILT in Wyoming pays substantially more, another thing I agree with.

Go find something else to bitch about or educate yourself if you want a serious discussion.

You are entitled to your socialistic opinion. It's well known here.

Seems the only time you dare show your face is when your commie policies are at risk.

Serious discussion, or not, I'll damn sure voice my opposition to things I know are wrong. If you don't care for that, you can GFY.

Clear enough?

My opinion is supported by facts and supreme court decisions regarding federal land ownership.

Tax rates and PILT are what they are, again based on facts.

If you want to challenge and change that, well, get off your ass and get with it. Your opinion amounts to exactly jack diddly chit.

I'm happy with federal land, happy about the legal precedence of same. Have no grievance with the taxes I pay, and happy to live in Wyoming surrounded by public lands.

I can't help people like you who seem miserable and unhappy with just about everything in your life.

It has to be tough to be such a miserable wretch, sitting on your ass, complaining about things you know you're not only wrong about, but are helpless to change in any way.

Glad to not be in your shoes...it would suck, big-time.

Clear enough?

Yeah, the Supreme Court has ruled against the constitution in more cases than this.

I'll stick to what was written, despite democrat placements of their policies over and above the constitution.

I'm so glad you aren't in my shoes too. Couldn't live with myself looking into your mirror... LOL.

Thanks...

Just like I initially posted... ZERO dollars in my county.

The actual payment in other counties is just plane ridiculous. Like less than a penny an acre paid by Uncle Sugar... in three of the wealthiest counties in America.

MATH MATTERS...

PILT sounds good on paper... but get into the weeds and it is a absolute joke.

Que Buzz...

"Everybody Is Stupid" O'Clock time.

Ol' Buzzard ain't done doubling down on his commie propaganda yet.

He gets his ass handed to him every time he starts with that crap here, but all he can do is name call, and post 30 year old hero pics of when he was working for the forest circus, drawing taxpayer salary for closing hunting areas to others, posting online, and promoting socialism.

Lots of yelling.
Not sure if people understand how pilt is calculated. It is not straight $ divided by acres as price per acre.
The population of the county is also included in the formula.

There's lots of factors included. % of county in fedlands, population, usage, etc.

Not many people have experience in the whole process, or even an idea that PILT even exists, or who gets it, or what strings come with it...

Yet they mouth off and name call, with complete ignorance.

In my county, 5 Natl Forests converge, Feds own 60% of the productive timberland, valued at fair market value of 9,000 per acre (about 3X value of decent farmland)...for which they pay PILT of 50 cents an acre average. Got that Buzz? Their adjoining neighbors, (checkerboard sections from old railroad grants)private timberland owners pay 90 dollars an acre, about 160 X of what the Feds pay....AND, the private companies additionally pay a timber yield tax on every board foot they harvest. Rural counties are being ripped off period. By the way, my numbers are good and current, my son is a timberlands manager and deals with the market every day.
In addition, the USFS is a lousy neighbor...they don't manage, maintain or thin fuels in any significant quantity. Private companies to protect their long term investment, have to actually build wide firelines and fuel reduction zones to insulate themselves from USFS lack of fuels mangement.
As usual...government IS the problem, never the solution.

LOL.

Those pesky damn facts again!

You and I have severely differing opinions on this matter.

1 There is good reason the COTUS prohibits local .gov taxing the fed.

2. Idaho's Reps can shove this bill up their ass. Fiscal responsibility is not gained by increasing obligations onto the Fed.

3 Local .gov entities need to learn to live on the budgets they are given, rather than screaming for ever increasing funds to blow in frivolous manners.

4 Collecting money at the Fed level and then redistributing it to local governments only serves to employ more Fed administrstors, increase the size of Fed beauracracy, waste 90 cents of every dollar returned as administrative costs, and give the Feds more control over local governments.

I fully supported Idaho's Sec of Education a few years ago when she told the Fed to pound sand, keep their funds, and keep their fingers out of our schools.

Unfortunately the liberals of the state raised a schitt storm over how she was robbing our youth of their education. And the battle was eventually lost

But I see the counties of any state becoming dependent upon the fed to sustain programs in the same light that I see schools which are dependent upon fed money.

We are better off without it. Learn to live within your budget.

Idaho Shooter, Where you reside, I can see your point. But Treasure Valley is the highest population density in Idaho, and one of the most productive agriculture areas in the west. The property tax base is huge. Clearwater County...Benewah County, hell, all your rural mountain counties probably have a much different view with low populations and high Fed presence. You got great schools, would you deny the kids in the rural mountain counties less of a shot at education because they have a miniscule tax base compared with your area? In Calif, PILT...by law, is 50% to schools and 50% to roads. I think in Idaho it goes to a broader spectrum...law enforcement, Search and Rescue, Fire etc...but still, it goes to rural counties where it is needed.

Yes, we do.

First, I'm not saying that local govt should tax federal land. Not even close.

I'm saying that vast land should not be owned by the federal govt.

I'd also like to throw in there that the federal govt shouldn't be either the largest land holder, nor the largest employer in the U.S.

Neither one serves the interest of public good.

I don't have all the answers, but a huge federal govt is damn sure the wrong way to roll.

Up until 1982 it was called, Timber Sharing Revenue, it was never a tax on the Fed...it was a VOLUNTARY (not a local tax, dammit) 25% contribution by the Fed in recognition of the huge volume of land held out of the tax base and profit from timber being cut. Back in those days, amazingly, the USFS actually sold profitable timber sales. But, the USFS because of a huge bloated bureaucracy, no longer is able to sell but a tiny fraction of what is rotting and burning every summer. The USFS is not even able to salvage the burnt timber after a fire on their land.
Why not, they used to do it? Back in the 80's a Fed rule was passed, the USFS had to break even or make a profit on sales. But, there was such a boom in hiring 'ologists, that so many people were involved in the sale, they couldn't possibly make a profit. It is estimated that in the USFS 24 expert 'ologists have to sign off on a harvest plan...minimum. My son's employer produces timber harvest plans with 4 people, start to finish, and as quick as the law allows. Private companies begin reforestation BEFORE logging is finished. Private companies begin logging after a fire, before the smoke clears. They go in, log it, prepare for erosion, replanting and are out before the snow flies...a new crop in the ground.

You are correct about tax base across much of the Treasure Valley. And the Valley is much worse off for it.

I well remember when our County Sheriff's dept was the Sheriff and two deputies, when our school district was comprised of 300 students 1-12 grade, when there were five school buses for the entire district, when the county road district had a few six wheel dump trucks for plowing snow and building roads vs a parking lot full of rigs bigger and better than the State highway dept.

Yes, we had to plow our own way out the first couple of miles of county road, you had to occasionally shovel your way through a snow drift.

And it was a hell of a lot bettet place to live.

The only thing growth does for a community is make land speculators and developers wealthy. And it makes the %age skimmed by local government a lot bigger.

As stated before, local governments need to learn to balance their budgets and live within their means.

100%

I am not sure that transferring the majority of public lands into private hands is the best thing for Americans.

It is certainly not the best thing for those who hunt, shoot, and recreate on public lands.

But yes, it would make a lot of rich people much richer as they aquired vast tracts of current public lands at fire sale prices and resold them for development.

Different regions of the country have different land ownership traditions. Here in MI, we've got wonderful National Forests for anyone to use. As such, hunting, camping, hiking and other outdoor pursuits are available to all. What a terrible thing if these became the pastimes of only the wealthy.

Considering all the money that .gov funnels back to states (and in turn get funneled down to counties/cities), I think it makes more sense that they don’t pay property taxes.

For example in TN, .gov kicks in about 90-95% for many infrastructure projects and the local municipality is only on the hook for the remaining portion (or possibly less).