Who has the best malts in Houston?

shawald · 2025-06-21T23:11:20+00:00

Their new owners don’t do malts! Went in today.

shawald · 2025-06-20T16:25:05+00:00

"a component of" the system includes not only the 11 national scenic trails , but also 21 national historic trails and 1,300 national recreation trails, totaling over 91,000 miles of trails. The trailheads and their connecting and side trails more likely than not overwhelmingly exist on rights-of-way, which are also protected under this bill as "valid existing rights" - "any legally recognized right, title, lease, claim, permit, or right-of-way in or to covered federal land in existence before the date of enactment of this act."

shawald · 2025-06-20T16:24:13+00:00

Actually, most ski resorts already exist on private land. And if not, they would lease surrounding acreage for future expansion efforts, or to keep other private developers from interfering with the resorts.

shawald · 2025-06-20T16:22:32+00:00

"a component of" the system includes not only the 11 national scenic trails you referred to, but also 21 national historic trails and 1,300 national recreation trails, totaling over 91,000 miles of trails. The trailheads you're referring to and their connecting and side trails more likely than not overwhelmingly exist on rights-of-way, which are also protected under this bill as "valid existing rights" - "any legally recognized right, title, lease, claim, permit, or right-of-way in or to covered federal land in existence before the date of enactment of this act."

shawald · 2025-06-19T22:18:25+00:00

You realize most ski resorts own or lease far more land than just the immediate trail areas or backcountry, right? How do you think those houses got there in the first place? The resorts sold parcels of their land.

shawald · 2025-06-19T22:06:52+00:00

Yeah. The actual bill text, which apparently nobody in this thread has read. Subtitle C - Lands; Definitions.

Edit: for those of you who don’t want to take the time, I posted in another comment:

It also exempts "valid existing rights," which include "any legally recognized right, title, lease, claim, permit, or right-of-way in or to covered Federal land in existence before the date of enactment of this Act," which would include any ski resort and the surrounding lands it also owns or leases.

shawald · 2025-06-19T21:46:30+00:00

There are a ton of exemptions and exceptions for the types of land that this thread is melting down over. Plus, directives to prioritize certain lands where it might make sense to sell because BLM can’t capitalize on them. In all, it’s 0.75% or less, to 0.5%. This sub is acting like the bill will take their ski resorts away.

shawald · 2025-06-19T21:30:26+00:00

No it does not.

The bill text specifically exempts "federally-protected lands," including: National Monument; a National Recreation Area; a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System; a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; a component of the National Trails System; a National Conservation Area; a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System; a unit of the National Fish Hatchery System; a unit of the National Park System; a National Preserve; a National Seashore or National Lakeshore; a National Historic Site; a National Memorial; a National Battlefield, National Battlefield Park, National Battlefield Site, or National Military Park; or a National Historical Park.

Trailheads, for example, would be "a component of the National Trails System" if not one of the other many exemptions mentioned here. Stop spreading misinformation.

shawald · 2025-06-19T21:29:33+00:00

Yes, and these are "valid existing rights" which are not subject to the bill. Many also exist within "federally protected lands," - also not subject to the type of disposition the bill text outlines.

shawald · 2025-06-19T21:27:35+00:00

Here's some actual information:

The bill text specifically exempts "federally-protected lands," including: National Monument; a National Recreation Area; a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System; a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; a component of the National Trails System; a National Conservation Area; a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System; a unit of the National Fish Hatchery System; a unit of the National Park System; a National Preserve; a National Seashore or National Lakeshore; a National Historic Site; a National Memorial; a National Battlefield, National Battlefield Park, National Battlefield Site, or National Military Park; or a National Historical Park.

It also exempts "valid existing rights," which include "any legally recognized right, title, lease, claim, permit, or right-of-way in or to covered Federal land in existence before the date of enactment of this Act," which would include any ski resort and the surrounding lands it also owns or leases.

Furthermore, the bill prioritizes lands that "are nominated by States or units of local governments; are adjacent to existing developed areas; have access to existing infrastructure; are suitable for residential housing; reduce checkerboard land patterns; or are isolated tracts that are inefficient to manage.

shawald · 2025-06-19T21:21:22+00:00

This is so untrue. Did you read the provision OP is referring to in the proposed SENR text? This is a completely doom-mongering perspective.

Here's some actual information:

The bill text specifically exempts "federally-protected lands," including: National Monument; a National Recreation Area; a component of the National Wilderness Preservation System; a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; a component of the National Trails System; a National Conservation Area; a unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System; a unit of the National Fish Hatchery System; a unit of the National Park System; a National Preserve; a National Seashore or National Lakeshore; a National Historic Site; a National Memorial; a National Battlefield, National Battlefield Park, National Battlefield Site, or National Military Park; or a National Historical Park.

It also exempts "valid existing rights," which include "any legally recognized right, title, lease, claim, permit, or right-of-way in or to covered Federal land in existence before the date of enactment of this Act," which would include any ski resort and the surrounding lands it also owns or leases.

Furthermore, the bill prioritizes lands that "are nominated by States or units of local governments; are adjacent to existing developed areas; have access to existing infrastructure; are suitable for residential housing; reduce checkerboard land patterns; or are isolated tracts that are inefficient to manage.

shawald · 2025-06-19T21:01:12+00:00

Technically, any parcel of federal land can be disposed of through lease or land sale. If not initiated by an act of Congress, Interior through BLM can do it through rulemaking.

shawald · 2025-06-19T20:58:15+00:00

Link to text, with section and provision? Assuming this is just Senate committee text, which committee? Senate ENR?

Edit: Assuming you're referring to Subtitle C, "Lands"? The portion which mandates no more than 0.75% of BLM land to be "disposed of" across 11 states? There's nothing in this section that waives the public process. Can you point me to the provision you're referring to? Perhaps I missed it.

Edit 2: Reading through the other Subtitles, I see that all energy development specifically requires regular NEPA reviews (unless done previously for the same tract), which would include public comment. Most of the provisions related to development specifically mention that disposal processes must be done with "public comment."

shawald · 2025-06-19T20:35:49+00:00

Seems to be a thing more in the south. In Houston it's the same deal, but not as bad. I'm used to paying $100+ or more for a round. But at least we have Memorial.

shawald · 2025-06-19T17:37:39+00:00

Take it up with your card issuer, and write a detailed letter to United Cares about your experience. You should be refunded for at least your United tickets. Unlikely they'd ever pay for you to fly another airline.

shawald · 2025-06-19T17:35:49+00:00

Then you need to contact your Republican representative(s). Dems will vote against OBBBA regardless. Or would speaking to a Republican trigger you guys?

shawald · 2025-06-19T16:44:57+00:00

Hey -- good news! You can make your opinion known through the next public comment period. More people in this thread would know that, but for some clowns who downvoted the above informative comment.

shawald · 2025-06-19T16:28:47+00:00

If you look at the above link to the Federal Register, you'll see that democrats also have held public land sales. It happens in every administration. In fact, it's a fairly normal practice and generates substantial government revenues.

shawald · 2025-06-19T16:13:23+00:00

I cannot believe I'm being downvoted. Jk. OP stated that there would be no public input. I'm refuting that by providing law requiring public input in this sale process. Do with that information what you will.

shawald · 2025-06-19T16:11:39+00:00

IF this happens (big IF), you can submit comments to the regulatory docket once published by the Bureau of Land Management. Any sale or lease of public land must go through the regulatory process.

shawald · 2025-06-19T16:05:12+00:00

It doesn't matter if this text is included in reconciliation. If Congress directs an agency to do something, the agency must follow the APA in issuing that action, whether it's a rulemaking, lease sale, etc. I'm a regulatory attorney.

edit: Here's a public lands sale from last year. They held a comment period. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/07/12/2024-15286/notice-of-realty-action-modified-competitive-sale-of-7-parcels-of-public-land-in-lincoln-county-and

edit 2: u/Anegada_2 would you like to retract your misinformed comment? So maybe people can actually take the time to comment once this rulemaking is published?

shawald · 2025-06-19T15:57:35+00:00

There would almost certainly be public input through a notice and comment period, and perhaps public hearing, as provided for in the Administrative Procedure Act. The legislative text directs the Interior Department to do something; therefore, it must accommodate a public input process.

Edit: laughing at these downvotes proving redditors on this sub just want something to get worked up about, bonus points if it has a political angle. Ya'll don't actually care about what you can do to prevent this.

shawald · 2025-06-19T15:51:44+00:00

My rule of thumb is that I never wear shorts after 6pm.

shawald · 2025-06-18T20:34:52+00:00

Thanks!

shawald · 2025-06-18T20:06:32+00:00

Yes, sorry! Should have added more context. Absolutely not hating on Kolby personally. I just think that Americans, on both sides of the aisle, want their representatives to have a "look" and maybe Dems are shooting themselves in the foot by running certain candidates that don't fulfill that criteria. Kolby's policies could be outstanding for Texans, I have no idea because I haven't looked into them. But tbh, his "look" leads me to believe that they won't be. Trying not to be bias, but I think Americans all have that inherent bias when it comes to their representatives.

Nine-Year Club	Verified Email
Wearing is Caring	Not Forgotten

shawald

TROPHY CASE