Lawsuit Filed to Cement Legality of Corner Crossing in Montana

[Elky Welky]

What I don't understand, is why do I or does anyone even care about property values?

I think it is a red herring

But Albus trying to blow smoke about property values is ridiculous...and dumb.

I agree that it is ridiculous, we shouldn't have to care, and at the end of the day it is a red herring.

However, it is a powerful narrative that the enemies of the public good have in their toolbox and use to great effect to scare property owners into their corner. There are countless good people whose entire net worth is tied up in their property. "Land rich, money poor" as the expression goes. Telling them their land will be devalued (contrary to reality, sure) because of the public accessing public land is a good way to raise money for UPOM and its ilk.

There are many ways for the enemies of the public good to fight corner crossing that, though illegitimate, outright false, etc. are still compelling. As Mr. Albus has demonstrated here, "common sense" is in the eye of the beholder. (In my experience anyone who relies upon "common sense" as an argument probably doesn't have much sense of their own.) Someone already predisposed to dislike public access is going to latch on to any argument that they think advances their cause. And we would be wise to take them seriously. There's nothing more powerful than a good story, true or false.

And don't expect these people to play this clean or fair or logical. Bypassing DNRC to swap away corner-locked lands, asserting that the public can be excluded from grazing leases, holding block mgmt hostage or being petty and stepping out of BM over corner crossing, etc. All of this is happening right now, and we must be nimble and unafraid to call it out as we see it.

Can we stop them? Only if enough of us show up.

 

[Eric Albus]

Some things that in my opinion are relevant to this conversation and the claims made about corner crossing legality and it's impacts on land values.

First, I think it's prudent to point out that just because a realtor can create a sense of exclusivity to a potential land buyer, by including land locked public land in the purchase, does not mean that ranch on a per acre basis is actually more valuable. It's simply a realtor selling an idea or a percieved sense of entitlement that does not exist. The realtor, from everything I've seen, does not have the right or authority to sell exclusive access to public land or any land that is not deeded/owned by the seller. They may be able to sell/include grazing rights to that public land, but that's a far cry from ownership and exclusive access. So in a sense, at least in my opinion, they're selling a dishonest perspective to potential land buyers to boost their commissions.

Second, Western North Dakota and Eastern Montana are very similar in multiple facets. Politics, population densities, land use, hunting, etc. However, North Dakota has what we call the section line law (statute linked and shown below). This law states that every single section line, has a 33 foot public right of way on each side of that section line. So, there is a 66 foot public right of way on every single section line that is open to public travel (by foot, or by motor vehicle if there is a trail). Yet, grazing land values in Western ND and Eastern MT, at least by everything I've seen, are nearly identical (Which makes sense considering their similarities). You would think, if previous claims about loss of land value were true, that ND would have significantly lower land values. Certainly, no one could argue that a 66 foot right of way along an entire 1 mile section line, would impact land values more than just a point at a corner. Yet...


View attachment 412810

I think there are many reasons for ND&Mt land values being near equal on pasture/grazing.
1. Rains more in ND
2. Closer to the oil money
3. Ppl go into it eyes wide open w/ easement a known factor

 

[Eric Albus]

I agree that it is ridiculous, we shouldn't have to care, and at the end of the day it is a red herring.

However, it is a powerful narrative that the enemies of the public good have in their toolbox and use to great effect to scare property owners into their corner. There are countless good people whose entire net worth is tied up in their property. "Land rich, money poor" as the expression goes. Telling them their land will be devalued (contrary to reality, sure) because of the public accessing public land is a good way to raise money for UPOM and its ilk.

There are many ways for the enemies of the public good to fight corner crossing that, though illegitimate, outright false, etc. are still compelling. As Mr. Albus has demonstrated here, "common sense" is in the eye of the beholder. (In my experience anyone who relies upon "common sense" as an argument probably doesn't have much sense of their own.) Someone already predisposed to dislike public access is going to latch on to any argument that they think advances their cause. And we would be wise to take them seriously. There's nothing more powerful than a good story, true or false.

And don't expect these people to play this clean or fair or logical. Bypassing DNRC to swap away corner-locked lands, asserting that the public can be excluded from grazing leases, holding block mgmt hostage or being petty and stepping out of BM over corner crossing, etc. All of this is happening right now, and we must be nimble and unafraid to call it out as we see it.

Can we stop them? Only if enough of us show up.

I guess I must spell out for some occasionally, and for a few others continually .
I am not opposed to corner hopping, if SCOTUS says it’s legal.

Perhaps only to myself and those whom with I consort, maybe we are all stupid, but to us landowners, it de-values some properties. Specifically those places that are checkerboard public/private. It may indeed RAISE values of property without the checkerboard patterns. To all of us with whom I consort it definitely does.
If I’m stupid it’s not on this subject. I’d not pay near as much for a ranch that has corner crossing potential. Once the corner is hopped and the hunter is out of sight what happens? A lot of trespassing. Perhaps the section of BLM holds the elk(many times this is the case), hunters walk through and busts the game out to neighbor ranch. I fail to see how it doesn’t devalue.

 

[DFS]

I guess I must spell out for some occasionally, and for a few others continually .
I am not opposed to corner hopping, if SCOTUS says it’s legal.

Perhaps only to myself and those whom with I consort, maybe we are all stupid, but to us landowners, it de-values some properties. Specifically those places that are checkerboard public/private. It may indeed RAISE values of property without the checkerboard patterns. To all of us with whom I consort it definitely does.
If I’m stupid it’s not on this subject. I’d not pay near as much for a ranch that has corner crossing potential. Once the corner is hopped and the hunter is out of sight what happens? A lot of trespassing. Perhaps the section of BLM holds the elk(many times this is the case), hunters walk through and busts the game out to neighbor ranch. I fail to see how it doesn’t devalue.

I guess it would depend if you are buying the ranch for raising cattle or hunting.

 

[WyoCoalMiner]

I fail to see how it doesn’t devalue.

You are going to have to show proof of actually devaluing land. If CC were not to be legal, then I could see that as being a selling point for a particular property but that doesn't necessarily mean it has increased in value. Kind of like your home. Putting a new roof on it doesn't necessarily mean it has increased in value but it might be easier to sell relative to a place with a 30 yr old roof.

 

[DP_PublicLands]

I guess I must spell out for some occasionally, and for a few others continually .
I am not opposed to corner hopping, if SCOTUS says it’s legal.

Perhaps only to myself and those whom with I consort, maybe we are all stupid, but to us landowners, it de-values some properties. Specifically those places that are checkerboard public/private. It may indeed RAISE values of property without the checkerboard patterns. To all of us with whom I consort it definitely does.
If I’m stupid it’s not on this subject. I’d not pay near as much for a ranch that has corner crossing potential. Once the corner is hopped and the hunter is out of sight what happens? A lot of trespassing. Perhaps the section of BLM holds the elk(many times this is the case), hunters walk through and busts the game out to neighbor ranch. I fail to see how it doesn’t devalue.

Here's the thing - we are not for asking corner crossing to be legal. We are saying its never been a trespass. Therefore, any ranch with checkerboard is and always has always been subject to "corner crossing potential". If you purchased it thinking that wasn't the case and paid more for it, you paid too much for it. If your realtor promised you exclusive access to public land and you paid a premium for that, you made a poor decision and received poor guidance.

I guess more than one of us have to keep spelling things out. Asking for a change and asking for clarification of what has always been is completely different.

 

[SAJ-99]

A lot of trespassing. Perhaps the section of BLM holds the elk(many times this is the case), hunters walk through and busts the game out to neighbor ranch. I fail to see how it doesn’t devalue.

Under this example of elk running from the BLM on to the private ranch, it seems the corner crossing has INCREASED the value.

 

[Treeshark]

I fail to see how it doesn’t devalue.

Why is that relevant?

 

[Forkyfinder]

@Eric Albus

I mean this respectfully - but why should anyone care if this is devalued? I dont imagine it will affect the ag property value which is what the tax base would be impacted by.

I look at it no different than some of the contested access issues on roads. If the landowner locks it up and the public regains access, id imagine the landowner perceives that he lost value. If the landowner had never contested the access - there would have never been the perceived elevated value based on exclusivity. It depends on the property and how they have handled access. If access was always allowed prior to and after cc rulings - no perceived value was lost or gained.

None of it should be of anyones concern.

 

[TOGIE]

I guess I must spell out for some occasionally, and for a few others continually .
I am not opposed to corner hopping, if SCOTUS says it’s legal.

Perhaps only to myself and those whom with I consort, maybe we are all stupid, but to us landowners, it de-values some properties. Specifically those places that are checkerboard public/private. It may indeed RAISE values of property without the checkerboard patterns. To all of us with whom I consort it definitely does.
If I’m stupid it’s not on this subject. I’d not pay near as much for a ranch that has corner crossing potential. Once the corner is hopped and the hunter is out of sight what happens? A lot of trespassing. Perhaps the section of BLM holds the elk(many times this is the case), hunters walk through and busts the game out to neighbor ranch. I fail to see how it doesn’t devalue.

perception vs. reality man...

perception vs. reality.

 

[BuzzH]

I guess I must spell out for some occasionally, and for a few others continually .
I am not opposed to corner hopping, if SCOTUS says it’s legal.

Perhaps only to myself and those whom with I consort, maybe we are all stupid, but to us landowners, it de-values some properties. Specifically those places that are checkerboard public/private. It may indeed RAISE values of property without the checkerboard patterns. To all of us with whom I consort it definitely does.
If I’m stupid it’s not on this subject. I’d not pay near as much for a ranch that has corner crossing potential. Once the corner is hopped and the hunter is out of sight what happens? A lot of trespassing. Perhaps the section of BLM holds the elk(many times this is the case), hunters walk through and busts the game out to neighbor ranch. I fail to see how it doesn’t devalue.

I get tired of your crap that you believe every hunter is a trespasser. Combine that with every hunter leaving gates open and shooting your cows, it's a big landowner fairytale/red herring.

SCOTUS did rule, they held that the 10th circuit got it right. You may as well accept the fact that corner crossing is going to be legal in Montana, property values are not going to decline, and really you should be thankful you had control of something that you had no legal right to from the get-go. I don't really care that you wouldn't pay as much, you act as if you're the only potential buyer of property in Montana. I'm sure that AP would snap up what you don't want and would be supportive of the public accessing all of it, whether corner crossing or not.

What a crybaby...

BTW, can you show me a ranch in Wyoming or anywhere else in the 10th that has gone down in price since the corner crossing case?

How about river/stream front property in Montana because I can now wade the river and fish being devalued?

Good luck with that...

 

[BuzzH]

Here you go Eric...good thing stream access has kept the price down:

https://www.redfin.com/MT/Deer-Lodge/958-Pauly-Dr-59722/home/105131220

https://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-detail/Christensen-Rd_Billings_MT_59101_M94099-47411