OCR Text |
Show Classification has been useful in many instances to establish the pattern of land use and development which will make the best integrated use of the land and achieve the greatest land value and stability. The Commission believes that lands should be classified for occupancy uses for which the lands appear best suited as early as such prospective uses can be identified. This would provide the basis for sound long range planning for these uses on both public and related land, and would help assure interim uses that are consistent with the probable ultimate occupancy use. In many instances, classification in the broad category of urban use for the expansion of existing communities would be appropriate as a first step. More specific classifications within such areas would then be practical and beneficial as it becomes clearer what the form of development should be. This would include the designation of lands which are intended to be available to non-Federal entities for public uses like parks, schools, and utilities, and of lands where industrial use should be excluded or anticipated. Unavailability of Suitable Private Land Recommendation 91: Public land should be allocated to occupancy uses only where equally suitable private land is not abundantly available. We do not believe it is advisable to attract a disproportionate use of public lands for transmission lines, industrial sites, pipelines, canals, roads, sewage disposal plants, and refuse dumps and remove them from other productive uses, while equally suitable private lands stand idle. Disposal of public lands for occupancy uses where equally suitable private lands are readily available also can lead to an undue depression of private land values. Applicants for Occupancy Uses Recommendation 92: All individuals and entities generally empowered under state law to exercise an authorized occupancy privilege should be eligible applicants for occupancy uses, although a showing of financial and administrative capability should be required where large investments are involved. Lands generally should be allocated competitively where there is more than one qualified private applicant, but preference should be given to state and local governments and nonprofit organizations to obtain land for public purposes and to REA cooperatives where incidental to regular REA operations. 220 Many of the statutes regarding occupancy uses are silent or unclear about the qualifications of applicants for the rights or privileges that they provide. This has resulted in gaps and uncertainties which have been dealt with by administrative action, not always in a consistent and comprehensive fashion. The Commission could find no sound reason to exclude any individual or entity from any authorized occupancy use of public lands. Occupancy uses involving heavy investments are generally of an exclusive nature which preempts other productive uses that could be made of the area. Committing public land resources to ventures that are unlikely to be successful poses a risk of wasting such resources. Failure can also lead to serious economic setbacks for the affected regional public, as well as the purchaser. The Commission believes that where lands are disposed of for occupancy uses, public and publicly oriented entities which intend to provide continued public use of the land should be given preference over other applicants. The preference we recommend is a right of first refusal. Long range planning by these entities would be facilitated by providing them with greater assurance that they can secure land when needed for public purposes. At the same time, the Commission is of the opinion that as a general rule, where there is more than one qualified applicant for land for an occupancy use, competitive bid is the most equitable method of allocation. This method results in the greatest monetary return to the Government and generally, also, in the employment of the land for its highest and best use. We recognize that social considerations might justify exceptions in certain circumstances. Also, there might be situations where environmental or other concerns are so important that the plan of use is of equal or greater importance than the revenue that would be derived. For example, under the Federal Power Act, hydroelectric projects are licensed to the applicant whose proposed project is "best adapted to develop, conserve, and utilize in the public interest the water resources of the region." 1 Such a principle might also apply in selecting a developer interested in purchasing public land for a new city, since the best overall plan might weigh more heavily than land price considerations. Any such exceptions should be expressly authorized by Congress. Disposal Rather Than Lease or Permit Recommendation 93: In general, disposal should be the preferred policy in meeting the need for occupancy uses that require substantial investment, materially alter the land, 16 U.S.C. §800 (1964). |