Use Promo Code Randy for 20% off OutdoorClass

Land Swap

Most of the land swaps here work to our detriment.
The school funding goes down and the public ends up with crap land not good for much but shooting coyotes...
 
I did some quick searching and not a whole lot out there but found this website. It looks like they plan to ensure public access but some development involved as well. Would be interesting to see what that entails.

I entered my email address to download the analysis summaries. One of the examples of land to be received was near the Dworshak reservoir. Most of that timberland is already open to hunters/recreation, so not much of a gain for hunters but maybe not a loss. Other than possibly for locals in McCall area depending on the plan for public access/development.

Facebook Live event starting soon if anyone is interested.
 
Thanks to the Governor for saying "go slow on this".
Momma always said any deal that has to be done right now is not a good deal.
 
I don't know the lands in question but if the land that is proposed to be given in the swap generates 2.9 million per year, why would the private owner swap?
 
I don't know the lands in question but if the land that is proposed to be given in the swap generates 2.9 million per year, why would the private owner swap?

I would imagine the timberlands owners will end up with cash. IDL gets the timberland. The LLC could set aside some land for development and do the remainder in a conservation easement for an investor. Just guessing.
The manager of the LLC proposing the land exchange had worked for the Family Office of Bill Ackman so probably some investor $$ available.

http://trident-holdings-llc.com/about/

 
I looked at their website a little bit more.

Some quotes:
I recognize some of you may be skeptical. You have every right to be. Most developers I’ve run across in life do not really engage the community to hear and accommodate their concerns and feedback from the get-go. They come up with their plans in total isolation, then push those plans on surprised publics. That approach won’t work for folks in McCall, and it won’t work for my conscience either. But more importantly, that type of behavior violates our team’s Rule #1, which is: Do the opposite of the Wilks Brothers. Always.

They do plan to do a conservation easement:
First, we aim to put into conservation easements for public use vast tracts of included lands.

While donating all these lands immediately to conservation trusts from the start would be the best of all worlds for everyone, including us, financing a solution this large cannot rely on charity alone. It’s simply too big. Nor can we ask schools statewide to donate their investment landholdings to a good cause amidst a budget crisis. Therefore, we will work with McCall to plan a constellation of phased, small, clustered developments, away from existing homeowners as much as possible, and with large spans of conserved forest in between. These forested areas would continue to provide residents and visitors alike with the sprawling network of publicly accessible trails they currently enjoy, and would allow our team to maintain and improve the public’s access to them in ways state agencies cannot. If you enjoy using these lands now, the care we will afford these acres should let you enjoy them easier, always, and without the threat of State sale ever again.
 
A bunch of the proposed land to be swapped to IDL is cutover recent clearcuts. It certainly isn’t going to be generating much timber for a while. It may have cattle on it, I don’t know what IDL grazing leases look like but can’t think that would be a huge economic driver either. I struggle to see how anyone gains on this deal outside of real estate developers
 
A bunch of the proposed land to be swapped to IDL is cutover recent clearcuts. It certainly isn’t going to be generating much timber for a while. It may have cattle on it, I don’t know what IDL grazing leases look like but can’t think that would be a huge economic driver either. I struggle to see how anyone gains on this deal outside of real estate developers

Which goes right back to my point that if the land was really generating millions per year, the landowners wouldn't propose a swap.
 
Am I the only one who is starting to feel like trident isn't in this for the betterment of the people as they are claiming?
 
Generally, when someone proposes a land swap it is for their interest. Could be that someone else may benefit, but you can guarantee that the one doing the proposing thinks that they will benefit.
 
Back
Top