G Bar T Ranch FWP Big Belts = No Go For Public Land...

[Sytes]

Apparently and unfortunately, State and Landowners were unable to work further towards securing prime elk / deer habitat.

Question I have... OBJECTIVE assessment; How valid is the reason other landowners opposed the sale to the State?

At an April Broadwater County Commission meeting broadcast by the Broadwater Reporter, several landowners spoke out in opposition to the purchase.

...purchase could have implications for agriculture. He voiced concerns about what high appraised values could mean for other farms and ranches. If the sale becomes a comp at a higher price, it then drives up values unsustainably for ranchers and farmers hoping to stay on the ground, he said.

“When the government has the deep pockets it puts pressure on every single one working farmers and ranchers in this county,” he said. “It may look really good for the public, but it would not be very good for the farmers and ranchers if the value is way above the appraised value in Broadwater County.”

Article:

Deal falls through on FWP purchase of Townsend-area ranch

The proposed purchase of a Broadwater County ranch for incorporation into Montana’s network of wildlife management areas will not move forward.

helenair.com

 

[406LIFE]

In response only to that question, I can understand their fears. I also think that the ranch will eventually sell, and more than likely for a higher price to private hands. An eager seller may drop that price, but probably not by much, and the impact will be the same. As for the agriculyrual impact, I'd like to see more info; if land would revert back and not be farmed, then perhaps animals may move off and cause some issue. I dont know those details to make a judgment call

 

[LaSportsman]

I read the article. What is the concern, high appraisals for property tax? Laws that limit annual increases in appraisals for tax purposes can solve that. When property changes hands, the appraisal can be a fresh appraisal to balance need for tax dollars.

 

[Straight Arrow]

Apparently and unfortunately, State and Landowners were unable to work further towards securing prime elk / deer habitat.

Question I have... OBJECTIVE assessment; How valid is the reason other landowners opposed the sale to the State?

Those who own property in the Flathead and the Gallatin areas know what has occured with property values escalating at exorbitant rates. The taxes increase commensurately, with many retired and fixed income folks challenged financially. Case in point not long ago described an elderly pair of retired school teachers who lived near Whitefish Lake in a modest home purchased fifty years ago. The soaring real estate prices of lake properties and multi-million dollar homes in the area drove this retired couple's property taxes up through the roof. That couple would question the term "objective" in the appraisal. Prime property is only that valuable if you are in the real estate business or if you plan to sell your property. If you plan to liver there long term, the escalating value does you no good. 'Doesn't seem fair to me. Similarly it didn't seem fair to the landowners opposing this state purchase.

 

[scubohuntr]

But the neighbors' land is agricultural, which means they pay very little property tax in the first place. I'm betting that one of those "concerned neighbors" coincidentally buys the ranch at a discount pretty soon, now that the fair market value deal has been torpedoed.