The fundamental problem is a cartel on mineral rights. Alaska’s populist scheme for taxpayer ownership is just government control of mineral rights. With a market for mineral rights, individual owners could negotiate with mineral developers and producers. I find it incomprehensible that many conservatives support the collectivist scheme in Alaska especially market champions like Sarah Palin. I understand that many Alaskans resent the undue control of their land by DC politicians. Collectivist control of mineral rights only exacerbates the problem of government control however.
For conservatives who support this collectivist scheme, would you support the same scheme for other resources? Would you support collectivist ownership of farm land and housing tracts? Do you think food production and housing construction would increase or decrease?
If anything, that part makes it easier for production. There is only one owner to deal with for those areas, royalty rates tend to be fixed, reasonable and known to ail well in advance. The actual do a lot ti encourage lease and offer up large parcels with publicized public auctions.
The problem is the taxes on top of the royalties regardless if it is native, federal or state owned oil.
Sarah Pain did nothing to change the royalties or public sharing of the fund. Her administration only changed the taxes and those dollars only go to the state treasury.