There is a fair amount of land in America, held for the public good, by governmental agencies, such as the State, county, or the Federal government. When it comes to developmental projects, private developers have a strong inclination to desire public land over private land; for the main reason that private land can seldom be simply taken via eminent domain for private development, but must instead be negotiated, and not everyone that owns private land has an interest in selling, not even at a very good price; in addition to the salient fact, that some land that is desirable for development, is owned by a multitude of different owners, making the purchase of such, at a fair price, even more problematic. On the other hand, when it comes to public land, the ownership of such is typically quite clear, and of which, with the right connections, and the right lobbying, deals can be made; and even done so in a manner that is not all that transparent to the general public -- which has a right to know that those that manage that public land for them have demonstrated responsibility by the decisions so made which should be done in accordance to the public good.
While there is a lot that could be said for private development, and the fact that the right development in the right area, can be for the greater good; it must also be recognized that selling private land to developers is entirely different than the selling of public land. When it comes to the former, that land having been in private hands is essentially being transferred in a manner in which new money may find viable things to develop upon that land, which has some degree of benefit not only for the new owner and that development, but commonly to the public as well. In regards to public land, if that land, for instance, represents parkland, then all those that used to use that parkland for the beauty of nature, relaxation, conversation, walking and the like, are thereby precluded from doing so any further, and what has replaced it, may or may not bring any real benefit to the general public, as well as it clearly will no longer represent the same thing as that parkland.
Further to the point, those that are responsible for the governance of public land, need to first and foremost, hold the line, against the selling of such to private development, and especially need to be as transparent as possible with those that they are answerable to. Additionally, public land should not be something, that with enough pressure and the right connections, initiated by those private developers, thereby somehow morphs, as if by magic, into becoming something that is available to be sold. If, a given community, really needs to seriously consider selling some of its public land, then it must also make sure that the selling of such, comes with necessary terms and conditions, that thereby provides something of tangible worth to those that are the public; for the transfer of that which once was public into private hands, through “sweetheart” deals which benefit the few at the expense of the many, is almost always a public wrong.