Corner Crossing latest

[DP_PublicLands]

You are misreading my post in that you are assuming which side of this topic I am on. I'm 100% on board with it being legal and I want it to be legal.

I'm just pointing out that I'm also an investor with some money to invest right now and due to this issue and its current status, it is not a good time for me to invest in a property that has a valuation inflated by its borders with public lands that contain access points only via corner crossing

 

[BuzzH]

Well, part of my role for the last 20 years has been advising our tax organization on the impact of "intangible" considerations in tax valuations. Have been involved in 40+ states and 70+ countries. I will let our internal tax team and our leading edge outside tax counsel know they will not be needing my thoughts on these topics any longer because a Forestry Service civil servant told me none of it matters and we have all been wasting our time. I will cc: the various tax authorities (states and foreign govts) so they can quite including such considerations in their claims and assessments. Just think of all the time and money you have saved us all. Or maybe I won't

Not what I'm asking, and I don't need your resume.

Show me a piece of property bordering a stream or river in Montana that was devalued via the passage of stream access.

Second ask, is to show me a piece of property in Wyoming that James Rinehart, your allegedly "expert", slashed the price on because of the fear of corner crossing.

I appreciate your legal expertise, but the theory of some of that horseshit doesn't correlate into what actually happens in reality.

I'm not looking for hundreds of examples, I'm looking for one or two.

I'm not the person making unfounded bullshit claims about land prices taking a dump over public access.

It's those making the claims that have to prove it.

Also, you should feel humbled that a lowly civil servant has the stones to take on, as a volunteer, an issue that you're afraid to.

 

[MTGomer]

I don’t think the existence of public access cause price declines, but certainly exclusivity causes increases, right?
If MT stream access law were to disappear, wouldn’t properties, especially those that own both sides of the river, that could then be marketed as having exclusive access to x miles of river, increase in value?

 

[SAJ-99]

In theory it should reduce their property values - but that doesn’t matter as the increased value wasn’t theirs to keep in the first place. It’s like if my house is across from a low use city park and it made my home more desirable to purchasers. But then my city decided to build a big dog park that drove lots of traffic and noise into the neighborhood and my home became less desirable. That is the reality of real estate. The lawful land use of your neighbors effects your values but that is the risk you take. These folks need to grow up and stop whining- they enjoyed a windfall at public expense for years and it is coming to an end. We don’t have to pretend this doesn’t suck for them - it’s just that it sucking for them isn’t our problem.

I would guess a good lawyer could argue anything.

Is the N-Bar worth more because it landlocked the Durfee Hills?
Is it worth less because people use a helicopter to fly in?
Did they increase or decrease the value when they put up a fence on the property line?
I doubt any of these change the value of the ranch because there are 100 other things that go into valuation, but I definitely could see a single, small piece of property that allow access to the landlocked public pre-corner cross being decreased. I suspect the only "facts" that really matter are the price at the next transaction.

 

[BuzzH]

I don’t think the existence of public access cause price declines, but certainly exclusivity causes increases, right?
If MT stream access law were to disappear, wouldn’t properties, especially those that own both sides of the river, that could then be marketed as having exclusive access to x miles of river, increase in value?

Doubtful, in no state is there a prohibition about floating a river to fish, there is no "exclusivity" in access. The only thing that would change would be a few people wading the river up to the ordinary high water mark (maybe).

Its possible it could bump land values, but it wouldn't be significant, exactly why the prices along streams/rivers in Montana didn't decline a red cent when stream access passed.

Its perception, but not reality. A nice talking point to try to "prove" how horrific public access is. A good talking point for real estate agents who perceive they might lose a nickel on a land sale. Reality proved those fears are unfounded and truly as dumb as they sound.

It's going to be the exact same scenario when corner crossing is legal. Really, how much more traffic is a several thousand acre ranch going to experience, to the point that it devalue's the property? I would say none.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Doubtful, in no state is there a prohibition about floating a river to fish, there is no "exclusivity" in access. The only thing that would change would be a few people wading the river up to the ordinary high water mark (maybe).

Its possible it could bump land values, but it wouldn't be significant, exactly why the prices along streams/rivers in Montana didn't decline a red cent when stream access passed.

Its perception, but not reality.

It's going to be the exact same scenario when corner crossing is legal. Really, how much more traffic is a several thousand acre ranch going to experience, to the point that it devalue's the property? I would say none.

Tldr: rich folks with legislature friends protect and/or enhance the value of their assets.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Sure thing. Let me know which of those tax breaks ag corps dont qualify for.

Are you upset that ranching and farming are actual businesses or is this a new revelation to you?

 

[BuzzH]

Are you upset that ranching and farming are actual businesses or is this a new revelation to you?

I think that what many are tired of is the agribusiness's sucking up what was supposed to keep the family farms and ranches afloat.

I have no grievance, and in fact, fully support keeping legacy ranches/farms in the family any way we can. That includes cheap taxes, subsidies, loan programs, etc. etc.

What I don't like is the agribusiness's gaming the system, which puts significant strain on the very people those programs are supposed to protect.

YMMV.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Are you upset that ranching and farming are actual businesses or is this a new revelation to you?

No. Im appalled at the sheer power of whining with money in this state. Tax policy is a long conversation but there is no ranching like ranching politicans in helena and washington.

I feel like its pretty gross that BM fees (that arent worth it for them, so we recently doubled it) would cover the entirety of the tax bill that is "killing their business."

Theres legitimate ranches that i dont mind a bit to help. At the same time - when is it enough? Around 1/4 percent of what everyone else pays property tax on per area. Its cheaper to feed cattle on public land than it is to feed a goldfish. Theyre exempt from sales tax in Mt, no businesses pay much for income tax. When is it disturbing to you that a lot of these land owners see the land as a "tax shelter" playgound?

 

[Ben Lamb]

No. Im appalled at the sheer power of whining with money in this state. Tax policy is a long conversation but there is no ranching like ranching politicans in helena and washington.

I feel like its pretty gross that BM fees (that arent worth it for them, so we recently doubled it) would cover the entirety of the tax bill that is "killing their business."

Theres legitimate ranches that i dont mind a bit to help. At the same time - when is it enough? Around 1/4 percent of what everyone else pays property tax on per area. Its cheaper to feed cattle on public land than it is to feed a goldfish. Theyre exempt from sales tax in Mt, no businesses pay much for income tax. When is it disturbing to you that a lot of these land owners see the land as a "tax shelter" playgound?

There is no sales tax in MT.

 

[Forkyfinder]

There is no sales tax in MT.

Exactly.

 

[Ben Lamb]

Exactly.

 

[338win]

Doubtful, in no state is there a prohibition about floating a river to fish, there is no "exclusivity" in access. The only thing that would change would be a few people wading the river up to the ordinary high water mark (maybe).

Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest - Alerts & Closures

Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forest - Alerts & Closures

www.fs.usda.gov

Fighting for Flint access – pikecountygeorgia.com

Georgia idiotic aristocracy loves blocking public from fishing in a boat on streams.

 

[Gus Chiggins]

Also, you should feel humbled that a lowly civil servant who spends lots of time during his work day to post on Hunt Talk has the stones to take on, as a volunteer, an issue that you're afraid to.

 

[jpcoll01]

Hopefully soon AI will make it so we can hide the pissing matches on otherwise informative threads.

 

[Wildabeest]

I’ve purchased two parcels of land that gave me semi-exclusive access to public land (multiple property owners adjacent to the public, but no truly public access. I can say that it definitely contributed to the monetary value I put on the properties. You can count it as either one or two examples Buzz ;-).

 

[BrentD]

I own land that borders public, but there is a chunk of public that is cut off from public access by a river. Except in severe drought. That semi-exclusive land is definitely worth something to me, and a part of why I paid as much as I did for it.

 

[BuzzH]

I’ve purchased two parcels of land that gave me semi-exclusive access to public land (multiple property owners adjacent to the public, but no truly public access. I can say that it definitely contributed to the monetary value I put on the properties. You can count it as either one or two examples Buzz ;-).

But if corner crossing were an option to access it, the question is whether it would decrease the price someone else would pay for it.

What you value about your land is not necessarily what value a potential buyer would value about it.

I don't disagree that perhaps small pieces like yours see some value inflation. What Freddie is claiming is that a several thousand acre ranch within the checkerboard is going to be devalued a significant amount because a handful of users a year HIKE a mile or two into public land while crossing a corner.

I don't buy that for a second...

 

[Cornbread]

We can agree on the sentiment - but it was this landowner's choice to point to inflated valuations - he should live with the consequences.

Bingo. That would certainly be a pretty strong argument publicly. Whether he knew it when he said it, that it could potentially bite him in the ass, would be ironic. LOLOL.

 

[Cornbread]

Typically in Montana, the real estate appraisor does consider the inflated value due to proximity of or bordering public land or public waterway. However, the tax assessor in evaluating property for property tax purposes looks to nearby properties which have recently sold, and if the desirable location has inflated the value of the sale then it is a factor, but only as it pertains to a real estate transaction. Otherwise, the tax assessor does not consider that inflation. Thus, the assertion that proximity to public land (corner to corner or otherwise) increases the tax assessment is not valid, even "far out", IMHO. Furthermore, the potential for a corner crossing provision for public access would not be a "taking".

My opinion is in part based on dealings recently with the Montana Dept of Revenue appraisal process in that I protested and appealed my property tax assessment on a piece of property adjacent to the Blue Ribbon designated Gallatin River. The successful appeal was based on the reality that the parcel is in the floodplain, with stringent restrictions. The real estate factor that it is desirable for fishing and other recreation was not a factor in tax assessment evaluation.

The point is that there is often a big difference between real estate value and property tax assessment value. Hopefully the Wyoming case will not be a basis for diminishing that difference. If so ... then the "taking" aspect will not be that "far out".

All we are all saying is: There's more than one way to skin a cat. Not trying to criticize you. Just open your mind. There are no hard and fast rules in politics and the court system. When i posted this, I was trying to foster discussion. Sometimes, when you toss out an idea, it might seem ridiculous at first, but then when somebody else sees a slightly different angle to turn a skinch and really get at the meat of the problem, it becomes a genius idea. These "special landowners" have enjoyed public property without paying a dime for years and years. The public outnumbers them, so we are not helpless. Its too bad this country is gagging on favortism. I hate it. But if that's what it takes to open up millions of acres of public land, so be it. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Im a libertarian at heart. On the surface having more public land sounds wonderful. But look at what the special interests are doing with grizzly bear, wolf populations.

You could even say that the landlocked public land is actually say 50% in their control and should be included as if they own 50% more acreage. Or whatever %.