Page 19 of 26 FirstFirst ... 91718192021 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 259
  1. #181
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    NW Nebraska
    Posts
    140
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 20 Times in 18 Posts
    Congratulations
    13
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Good stuff againstthewind. Thanks for posting.

  2. #182
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Kingwood, TX
    Posts
    1,742
    Thanks
    80
    Thanked 233 Times in 176 Posts
    Congratulations
    45
    Congratulated 30 Times in 3 Posts
    http://www.nps.gov/grte/parknews/news-release-12-94.htm

    I couldn't help but notice 40ac of minerals going for $2000.

  3. #183
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    714
    Thanks
    173
    Thanked 224 Times in 167 Posts
    Congratulations
    170
    Congratulated 21 Times in 3 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by okielite View Post
    Look. You know darn well the examples you gave before had nothing to do with this. Stop with all the whining and get real.

    After digging through that info it appears the land is zoned residential and ag and is just outside of Casper off the highway. They also outline why the piece of property does not meet their needs including minimal income potential and no public access or recreational value. If you read through the info it is quote apparent why they are selling the land. All this proves is that the state will get rid of pieces of property that dont' offer public access or recreational value and use the money to buy property that meets those requirements. If anything it shows how the state of Wyoming is looking to improve public access and increase recreational opportunities on it's land not that it want to get rid of accessible land that offers recreational opportunities. Actually proves my point and not yours.

    Here is their quote.

    As noted above the subject parcels are relatively small, surrounded by private land, and offers no recreational opportunities. Sale of the parcels would offer the opportunity for the state to acquire lands that would enhance public recreational access.
    My quote from an earlier post that you deem unimportant. "I'm sure every state has it's crown jewel that they pour larger amounts of resources into than other's. Will Wyoming ever sell Sinks Canyon State Park? Not a snowball's chance in hell. It would be the overlooked surplus or excess properties with no revenue stream that would get sold off to the highest bidder once a budget shortfall developed."

    There is really no difference between the parcel for sale near Casper and the checkerboard BLM ground along the I-80 corridor which accounts for millions of acres as the Board would view it. My side of this discussion was never about whether a state would sell prime real estate that produces revenue or recreational opportunities, but rather maintaining the access to these areas for generations to come, which I'd think we can agree on. There are large portions of this state that could easily be deemed useless and unprofitable from a financial standpoint, but, if you've done much driving in the state, you almost always have to pass through these same lands to get to an area to recreate in.

  4. #184
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    714
    Thanks
    173
    Thanked 224 Times in 167 Posts
    Congratulations
    170
    Congratulated 21 Times in 3 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by packmule View Post
    http://www.nps.gov/grte/parknews/news-release-12-94.htm

    I couldn't help but notice 40ac of minerals going for $2000.
    I remember reading about this a few years back. If I recall correctly, there was quite a bit of debate around what the land was actually worth.

  5. #185
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    NW Nebraska
    Posts
    140
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 20 Times in 18 Posts
    Congratulations
    13
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by libidilatimmy View Post
    My quote from an earlier post that you deem unimportant. "I'm sure every state has it's crown jewel that they pour larger amounts of resources into than other's. Will Wyoming ever sell Sinks Canyon State Park? Not a snowball's chance in hell. It would be the overlooked surplus or excess properties with no revenue stream that would get sold off to the highest bidder once a budget shortfall developed."

    There is really no difference between the parcel for sale near Casper and the checkerboard BLM ground along the I-80 corridor which accounts for millions of acres as the Board would view it. My side of this discussion was never about whether a state would sell prime real estate that produces revenue or recreational opportunities, but rather maintaining the access to these areas for generations to come, which I'd think we can agree on. There are large portions of this state that could easily be deemed useless and unprofitable from a financial standpoint, but, if you've done much driving in the state, you almost always have to pass through these same lands to get to an area to recreate in.
    You are hard to follow as you change the subject every time you are proven wrong. Now you are claiming all you care about is access but you have spent the last 2 days trying to find situations where states were selling large pieces of recreational land because you were trying to make us believe the states would sell the land. Which is it?

    If you are truly only concerned about access then you would be pushing for the state to sell all the inaccessible checkerboard land and buy accessible land that we could use. But that has never been your argument.


  6. #186
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Kingwood, TX
    Posts
    1,742
    Thanks
    80
    Thanked 233 Times in 176 Posts
    Congratulations
    45
    Congratulated 30 Times in 3 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by libidilatimmy View Post
    I remember reading about this a few years back. If I recall correctly, there was quite a bit of debate around what the land was actually worth.
    I'm just going to say that I can't find a deal that good & I actively look.

  7. #187
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    714
    Thanks
    173
    Thanked 224 Times in 167 Posts
    Congratulations
    170
    Congratulated 21 Times in 3 Posts
    [QUOTE=libidilatimmy;109569]Will Wyoming ever sell Sinks Canyon State Park? Not a snowball's chance in hell. It would be the overlooked surplus or excess properties with no revenue stream that would get sold off to the highest bidder once a budget shortfall developed."

    Please re-read my quote. My logic has remained steady. Maybe you're unable to see the connection from state's selling off land that they deem "unusable" or "unprofitable" for revenue's sake at the risk of this same line of thinking within the state governments escalating to a larger scale once budgetary shortfalls develop allowing private interests to land lock or block access to large pieces of public ground for personal gain.

  8. #188
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Wyoming
    Posts
    714
    Thanks
    173
    Thanked 224 Times in 167 Posts
    Congratulations
    170
    Congratulated 21 Times in 3 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by packmule View Post
    I'm just going to say that I can't find a deal that good & I actively look.
    That was probably a 'good ole boy' agreement made over a glass of Scotch.

  9. #189
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    NW Nebraska
    Posts
    140
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 20 Times in 18 Posts
    Congratulations
    13
    Congratulated 0 Times in 0 Posts
    [QUOTE=libidilatimmy;109583]
    Quote Originally Posted by libidilatimmy View Post
    Will Wyoming ever sell Sinks Canyon State Park? Not a snowball's chance in hell. It would be the overlooked surplus or excess properties with no revenue stream that would get sold off to the highest bidder once a budget shortfall developed."

    Please re-read my quote. My logic has remained steady. Maybe you're unable to see the connection from state's selling off land that they deem "unusable" or "unprofitable" for revenue's sake at the risk of this same line of thinking within the state governments escalating to a larger scale once budgetary shortfalls develop allowing private interests to land lock or block access to large pieces of public ground for personal gain.
    I've read you quote and listened to all your information. On one had you tell us that Wyoming will sell off recreational property if the feds give them land and try to scare us. Then you showed us how Texas and Michigan sell off small lots they obtain through things like delinquent taxes and try to say that is what will happen even though the property was mainly small lots which is nothing similar to large pieces of federal recreational land. Then you claim that all you care about is access in the future. And now we are back to you talking about selling off small, worthless, pieces of land with no recreational value and trying to make us believe that large pieces of recreational land will be next once the budget shortfalls develop. Except you can't find even 1 example where this has happened and its' basically against the law to do so if the property has recreational value and is accessible so it should never happen.

    I think it is a good idea to get rid of small pieces of land that offer no access or recreational value. That is why they have rules and regulations in place that identify which property does not meet their mission statement. Sell those pieces off and buy more accessible land. Sounds to me like they have a good plan in place that will prevent what you are describing from ever happening.

    I'd have no problem with the USFS selling off the pieces of land that were inaccessible or too small to be of any recreational value.

    Thanks for the debate. I learned some things as usual.

  10. #190
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Allegan, MI
    Posts
    1,238
    Thanks
    107
    Thanked 323 Times in 243 Posts
    Congratulations
    44
    Congratulated 46 Times in 8 Posts
    [QUOTE=okielite;109578]You are hard to follow as you change the subject every time you are proven wrong. Now you are claiming all you care about is access but you have spent the last 2 days trying to find situations where states were selling large pieces of recreational land because you were trying to make us believe the states would sell the land. Which is it?

    If you are truly only concerned about access then you would be pushing for the state to sell all the inaccessible checkerboard land and buy accessible land that we could use. But that has never been your argument.


    The vast majority of checkerboard land in Wyoming is in the south and it's not state land, but rather BLM that the state has absolutely no control over for sales of that property.

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •