Meth Elk
- Thread starter Point Creep
- Start date
JoseCuervo
New member
Also very cool if you have ever watched his films....
noharleyyet
Well-known member
BigHornRam
Well-known member
More like a shadey land swap with the Forest Service, Jabber. This news story sums up the F-ed up mess going on at the Yellowstone Club right now.
Blixseth sells trophy Yellowstone Club lot
By SCOTT McMILLION Chronicle Staff Writer
VIRGINIA CITY - Yellowstone Club founder Tim Blixseth has sold the land where he had planned to build the world’s most expensive house.
ERIK PETERSEN/CHRONICLE Semi-private ski lifts are a prominent feature of the gated Yellowstone Club, shown above, which is now for sale. Club founder Tim Blixseth announced a year ago that he would build the world’s most-expensive home at the club, but this month he sold the lot targeted for the home. The buyer of the 160-acre parcel inside The Yellowstone Club’s 14,300-acre expanse, according to records in the Madison County Courthouse, is Loren Bough, a Big Sky resident who is active in educational and community-building issues there.
Courthouse records also show that Blixseth is facing three new lawsuits related to landholdings in the Big Sky area.
Blixseth announced in January 2007 that he was planning to build a 53,000-square-foot home n roughly the same size as the new Bozeman Public Library n and put it on the market for $155 million. At the time, it was to be the most-expensive private home in the world, a concept that attracted international publicity.
He called the proposed structure “The Pinnacle” and said it would include a private ski lift to whisk owners and guests from inside the house to the top of the mountain. Plans also called for a heated driveway and an indoor-outdoor pool with a retractable glass wall.
Construction never started, however.
In a Thursday e-mail, Blixseth did not explain his change in plans but pointed out that he is in the real estate business.
“We are in the business at Yellowstone Club to sell land every day,” he wrote. “We have lots of land up there and there are always opportunities to build something big like The Pinnacle.”
The deed was recorded March 11.
“I’ve got no exciting plans for it,” Bough said. “It is, for me, just an investment.”
Bough grew up on a wheat farm at Highwood, Mont., and then made a career in international finance, living in England and Russia. He moved to Big Sky four and a half years ago, he said, and has been active in fundraising efforts to build a high school and the Big Sky Institute, which is affiliated with Montana State University.
Since Blixseth announced plans to build the Pinnacle, divorce proceedings with his estranged wife, Edra, have become increasingly testy. In addition, The Yellowstone Club is for sale.
Earlier this month, Blixseth said he expects the sale of the club to close April 15. Bloomberg News Service reported the price is $455 million. The potential new owner is Crossharbor Capital, a Boston-based private equity firm.
Meanwhile, new legal actions have been filed against Blixseth, whose wealth has been estimated at $1.2 billion by Forbes Magazine.
He recently settled a lawsuit filed by some minority owners of the club, including bicycle racing champion Greg LeMond, agreeing to buy their holdings for $38 million. Among them, they own just over 4 percent of the club.
However, the final $20 million payment is late and LeMond and the others are back in court, demanding payment by April 1.
The settlement with LeMond and the others “was to be funded partly by a sale of The Yellowstone Club,” Blixseth’s lawyer, Stephen Brown, said in court papers filed here.
Meanwhile, three other suits have been filed since January.
Michael Snow, who owns 1 percent of the club, is in court demanding payment for his share. He maintains he had a verbal agreement with Blixseth that calls for him to receive the same amount to be paid to LeMond and the others for each of their shares, which works out to about $9 million.
That payment was due Feb. 7, Snow’s suit says, but never arrived. Now, Snow wants attorney’s fees and punitive damages on top of the money.
“We will defend this suit vigorously as it is without merit,” Blixseth wrote in the e-mail.
LeMond also has filed a separate suit that claims Blixseth owes him a residential lot at the resort because he elicited at least 10 new members over a five-year period before he and Blixseth had their falling out.
Blixseth strongly denied in court papers that there was ever any such agreement, or that LeMond had brought that many new members.
“Mr. LeMond never brought in 10 members who bought property at The Yellowstone Club within five years, or at all,” Blixseth maintained.
The third new suit comes from the Boyne Corp., which owns the Big Sky Ski and Summer Resort.
That suit involves a 15.5-acre parcel of land near the apex of Lone Peak. Blixseth and his previous partners in the Big Sky Lumber Co. obtained that land as part of a complicated land swap with the Forest Service in the 1990s.
Boyne maintains that Blixseth promised to convey the land, which is near the Big Sky tram station at the top of the peak, to Boyne.
“If BSL is successful in obtaining the property from the (Forest Service) BSL agrees to sell the property to Boyne for the appraised value,” says a 1998 agreement filed with the legal complaint.
At the time, the value was estimated at $800 an acre.
Instead, the suit states, Blixseth conveyed the property on Feb. 7 to Spanish Peaks Development, which is adjacent to The Yellowstone Club. The Boyne suit also names Spanish Peaks.
Blixseth was an original partner in Spanish Peaks but has since sold his interests, he said earlier this month.
Blixeth and Spanish Peaks maintained in a legal reply filed this week that Boyne has “unclean hands” because it has been trespassing on the property by allowing construction on it and allowing people to ski on it. Plus, Boyne has refused to add Blixseth and Spanish Peaks to its insurance policy, they said.
They asked that the suit be dismissed and that Boyne “take away nothing.”
Scott McMillion is at [email protected].
Blixseth sells trophy Yellowstone Club lot
By SCOTT McMILLION Chronicle Staff Writer
VIRGINIA CITY - Yellowstone Club founder Tim Blixseth has sold the land where he had planned to build the world’s most expensive house.
ERIK PETERSEN/CHRONICLE Semi-private ski lifts are a prominent feature of the gated Yellowstone Club, shown above, which is now for sale. Club founder Tim Blixseth announced a year ago that he would build the world’s most-expensive home at the club, but this month he sold the lot targeted for the home. The buyer of the 160-acre parcel inside The Yellowstone Club’s 14,300-acre expanse, according to records in the Madison County Courthouse, is Loren Bough, a Big Sky resident who is active in educational and community-building issues there.
Courthouse records also show that Blixseth is facing three new lawsuits related to landholdings in the Big Sky area.
Blixseth announced in January 2007 that he was planning to build a 53,000-square-foot home n roughly the same size as the new Bozeman Public Library n and put it on the market for $155 million. At the time, it was to be the most-expensive private home in the world, a concept that attracted international publicity.
He called the proposed structure “The Pinnacle” and said it would include a private ski lift to whisk owners and guests from inside the house to the top of the mountain. Plans also called for a heated driveway and an indoor-outdoor pool with a retractable glass wall.
Construction never started, however.
In a Thursday e-mail, Blixseth did not explain his change in plans but pointed out that he is in the real estate business.
“We are in the business at Yellowstone Club to sell land every day,” he wrote. “We have lots of land up there and there are always opportunities to build something big like The Pinnacle.”
The deed was recorded March 11.
“I’ve got no exciting plans for it,” Bough said. “It is, for me, just an investment.”
Bough grew up on a wheat farm at Highwood, Mont., and then made a career in international finance, living in England and Russia. He moved to Big Sky four and a half years ago, he said, and has been active in fundraising efforts to build a high school and the Big Sky Institute, which is affiliated with Montana State University.
Since Blixseth announced plans to build the Pinnacle, divorce proceedings with his estranged wife, Edra, have become increasingly testy. In addition, The Yellowstone Club is for sale.
Earlier this month, Blixseth said he expects the sale of the club to close April 15. Bloomberg News Service reported the price is $455 million. The potential new owner is Crossharbor Capital, a Boston-based private equity firm.
Meanwhile, new legal actions have been filed against Blixseth, whose wealth has been estimated at $1.2 billion by Forbes Magazine.
He recently settled a lawsuit filed by some minority owners of the club, including bicycle racing champion Greg LeMond, agreeing to buy their holdings for $38 million. Among them, they own just over 4 percent of the club.
However, the final $20 million payment is late and LeMond and the others are back in court, demanding payment by April 1.
The settlement with LeMond and the others “was to be funded partly by a sale of The Yellowstone Club,” Blixseth’s lawyer, Stephen Brown, said in court papers filed here.
Meanwhile, three other suits have been filed since January.
Michael Snow, who owns 1 percent of the club, is in court demanding payment for his share. He maintains he had a verbal agreement with Blixseth that calls for him to receive the same amount to be paid to LeMond and the others for each of their shares, which works out to about $9 million.
That payment was due Feb. 7, Snow’s suit says, but never arrived. Now, Snow wants attorney’s fees and punitive damages on top of the money.
“We will defend this suit vigorously as it is without merit,” Blixseth wrote in the e-mail.
LeMond also has filed a separate suit that claims Blixseth owes him a residential lot at the resort because he elicited at least 10 new members over a five-year period before he and Blixseth had their falling out.
Blixseth strongly denied in court papers that there was ever any such agreement, or that LeMond had brought that many new members.
“Mr. LeMond never brought in 10 members who bought property at The Yellowstone Club within five years, or at all,” Blixseth maintained.
The third new suit comes from the Boyne Corp., which owns the Big Sky Ski and Summer Resort.
That suit involves a 15.5-acre parcel of land near the apex of Lone Peak. Blixseth and his previous partners in the Big Sky Lumber Co. obtained that land as part of a complicated land swap with the Forest Service in the 1990s.
Boyne maintains that Blixseth promised to convey the land, which is near the Big Sky tram station at the top of the peak, to Boyne.
“If BSL is successful in obtaining the property from the (Forest Service) BSL agrees to sell the property to Boyne for the appraised value,” says a 1998 agreement filed with the legal complaint.
At the time, the value was estimated at $800 an acre.
Instead, the suit states, Blixseth conveyed the property on Feb. 7 to Spanish Peaks Development, which is adjacent to The Yellowstone Club. The Boyne suit also names Spanish Peaks.
Blixseth was an original partner in Spanish Peaks but has since sold his interests, he said earlier this month.
Blixeth and Spanish Peaks maintained in a legal reply filed this week that Boyne has “unclean hands” because it has been trespassing on the property by allowing construction on it and allowing people to ski on it. Plus, Boyne has refused to add Blixseth and Spanish Peaks to its insurance policy, they said.
They asked that the suit be dismissed and that Boyne “take away nothing.”
Scott McMillion is at [email protected].
JoseCuervo
New member
How does that rank with the shady deal that the Forest Circus just cut with Plum Creek to pave all the roads so that Plum Creek can develop all the hunting ground in Montana into McMansions?
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Plum Creek just bailed on that deal Jose.......due to negative public pressure.
Lawnboy
Well-known member
My friend has a ranch that borders the N Bar ranch. This hunt would be a once in a lifetime hunt. Sounds like it would be unguided and an excellent opportunity to have a chance at a huge bull. Huge muleys, whitetails, turkeys and antelope all are found on this place. I don't know if you can only hunt elk but the land is an animal oasis. The ranch has 400 class bulls and I'm not crapping you about that. I'm digging in my pockets for a donation right now. Hey Big Fin this would be a write off wouldn't it?
I already have a good lay of the land if I could draw it.
I'm impressed that Siebel would donate this hunt as they don't allow hunting usually on the ranch. Good for him.
I already have a good lay of the land if I could draw it.I'm impressed that Siebel would donate this hunt as they don't allow hunting usually on the ranch. Good for him.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Read this Jose......
Plum Creek withdraws road plan
By MICHAEL JAMISON of the Missoulian
Plum Creek Timber Co. has abandoned its controversial forest road negotiations with Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey, citing strong public opposition.
“We've been thinking about it for a while,” company spokeswoman Kathy Budinick confirmed Monday. “The controversy just seemed to be continuing, and we want to be responsive to those concerns.”
Missoula County officials and others argued that an amendment would have eased the way for residential development on Plum Creek lands.
The concerns centered on access easements, which allow the Forest Service and Plum Creek to share roads across intermingled lands.
Historically, those easements were thought to be narrow, for timber hauling only.
But Plum Creek and Rey maintain the historic easements allow for all sorts of access, including residential subdivisions.
For a year and a half, the company and Rey worked quietly to craft a legal amendment to the old easements, which would confirm that position. In return, Plum Creek agreed to require homeowner associations to share some road costs, and to implement wildfire reduction programs.
“Although we continue to believe that the easement amendment would be beneficial to the general public, given the lack of receptivity, we have decided not to go forward with the amendment,” Plum Creek President and CEO Rick Holley wrote Monday, in a letter to Missoula County.
The county was one of the first to raise the alarm last spring, when word of the closed-door negotiations leaked. Officials here worried the amendment could result in wholesale forest development. That would cut off forest access, they said, and would burden taxpayers with the costs of delivering urban infrastructure and firefighting to Plum Creek's far-flung neighborhoods.
The company is the nation's largest private landowner, with 8 million acres, including more than 1 million acres in Montana. Traditionally, those acres have been working forests, but in recent years, Plum Creek's real estate sale revenue tripled, to more than $330 million annually.
Nationwide, the company has targeted 2 million of its acres for sale in coming years, with an estimated value of nearly $6 billion.
The assurance of subdivision road access would have increased that value by a full $1 billion or more, according to some estimates.
Both Rey and the company held many meetings over the past six months, attempting to explain their position on the easements. Last week, Rey - a former timber industry lobbyist and political appointee whose term ends with the Bush administration's departure - stressed his intent to rule on the matter before leaving office.
But Plum Creek took the matter out of his hands on Monday, opting out of the controversial agreement. The amendment cannot be implemented without Plum Creek's participation.
“While this action may be disappointing to those who have expressed an interest in the public benefits of the proposed easement amendment,” Holley wrote, “we will continue to work with the U.S. Forest Service on road maintenance issues, including fire management.”
Holley added that public recreational access would continue on company lands; and he emphasized that Plum Creek would continue to use forest roads in accordance with the historic easements - which the company still maintains allow for unfettered access.
The argument over the scope of the easements, in fact, remains far from resolved.
If the company is correct, and the access is universal, then Plum Creek has lost nothing by backing out, but the public has lost the negotiated concessions.
But if the county is correct, and Plum Creek's rights are limited, then the public has avoided a legal amendment that would have increased residential access through federal forests.
“We're pleased,” said Missoula County Commissioner Jean Curtiss. “I think Plum Creek made a good decision today. Now we have time to work with them.“
By abandoning the amendment, she said, Plum Creek has removed the urgency created by Rey's departure.
“It allows us the time we need to shine a little light on this, and that's a good thing,” agreed Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont.
Tester intervened last spring, helping to delay implementation of the agreement until those affected could be brought up to speed. His concerns, he said, were never with the amendment itself, but rather with the process, which was conducted outside the public eye.
“I've said it before - if this is a good deal for the public, then there's no harm in taking the time to work through it properly,” Tester said.
Rey said he will meet with the senator later this week, as promised before Plum Creek's reversal, “to discuss all the implications.”
Rey still contends Plum Creek's access rights exist regardless, and that the public will be ill served without the concessions he won during negotiations.
But Curtiss maintains those concessions were “fairly insignificant,” and called them “so much paper.”
All agree, however, that the scope of access allowed by historic easements will have to be decided at some point.
James McCubbin, a deputy county attorney for Missoula County, is charged with reviewing the legal aspects of subdivision requests. One of those requirements is that the landowners have legal access to the site.
“I think it's entirely possible that a judge may have to rule on the language of some of these easements,” McCubbin predicted.
He's reviewed several of the documents, and says that “while some do, in fact, provide unrestricted access, many more do not.”
“Those issues will be decided on a case-by-case basis,” McCubbin said.
For now, however, the attorney is feeling more grateful than litigious.
“We're very pleased that Plum Creek is acknowledging the public input they've received,” he said. “This is a perfect example of why public input is so critical.”
McCubbin added that Plum Creek's decision to withdraw “puts us in a very good position to move forward as partners on these issues.”
“And that's what needs to happen here,” Tester agreed, “with an open process, where everyone is at the table from day one.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plum Creek withdraws road plan
By MICHAEL JAMISON of the Missoulian
Plum Creek Timber Co. has abandoned its controversial forest road negotiations with Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey, citing strong public opposition.
“We've been thinking about it for a while,” company spokeswoman Kathy Budinick confirmed Monday. “The controversy just seemed to be continuing, and we want to be responsive to those concerns.”
Missoula County officials and others argued that an amendment would have eased the way for residential development on Plum Creek lands.
The concerns centered on access easements, which allow the Forest Service and Plum Creek to share roads across intermingled lands.
Historically, those easements were thought to be narrow, for timber hauling only.
But Plum Creek and Rey maintain the historic easements allow for all sorts of access, including residential subdivisions.
For a year and a half, the company and Rey worked quietly to craft a legal amendment to the old easements, which would confirm that position. In return, Plum Creek agreed to require homeowner associations to share some road costs, and to implement wildfire reduction programs.
“Although we continue to believe that the easement amendment would be beneficial to the general public, given the lack of receptivity, we have decided not to go forward with the amendment,” Plum Creek President and CEO Rick Holley wrote Monday, in a letter to Missoula County.
The county was one of the first to raise the alarm last spring, when word of the closed-door negotiations leaked. Officials here worried the amendment could result in wholesale forest development. That would cut off forest access, they said, and would burden taxpayers with the costs of delivering urban infrastructure and firefighting to Plum Creek's far-flung neighborhoods.
The company is the nation's largest private landowner, with 8 million acres, including more than 1 million acres in Montana. Traditionally, those acres have been working forests, but in recent years, Plum Creek's real estate sale revenue tripled, to more than $330 million annually.
Nationwide, the company has targeted 2 million of its acres for sale in coming years, with an estimated value of nearly $6 billion.
The assurance of subdivision road access would have increased that value by a full $1 billion or more, according to some estimates.
Both Rey and the company held many meetings over the past six months, attempting to explain their position on the easements. Last week, Rey - a former timber industry lobbyist and political appointee whose term ends with the Bush administration's departure - stressed his intent to rule on the matter before leaving office.
But Plum Creek took the matter out of his hands on Monday, opting out of the controversial agreement. The amendment cannot be implemented without Plum Creek's participation.
“While this action may be disappointing to those who have expressed an interest in the public benefits of the proposed easement amendment,” Holley wrote, “we will continue to work with the U.S. Forest Service on road maintenance issues, including fire management.”
Holley added that public recreational access would continue on company lands; and he emphasized that Plum Creek would continue to use forest roads in accordance with the historic easements - which the company still maintains allow for unfettered access.
The argument over the scope of the easements, in fact, remains far from resolved.
If the company is correct, and the access is universal, then Plum Creek has lost nothing by backing out, but the public has lost the negotiated concessions.
But if the county is correct, and Plum Creek's rights are limited, then the public has avoided a legal amendment that would have increased residential access through federal forests.
“We're pleased,” said Missoula County Commissioner Jean Curtiss. “I think Plum Creek made a good decision today. Now we have time to work with them.“
By abandoning the amendment, she said, Plum Creek has removed the urgency created by Rey's departure.
“It allows us the time we need to shine a little light on this, and that's a good thing,” agreed Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont.
Tester intervened last spring, helping to delay implementation of the agreement until those affected could be brought up to speed. His concerns, he said, were never with the amendment itself, but rather with the process, which was conducted outside the public eye.
“I've said it before - if this is a good deal for the public, then there's no harm in taking the time to work through it properly,” Tester said.
Rey said he will meet with the senator later this week, as promised before Plum Creek's reversal, “to discuss all the implications.”
Rey still contends Plum Creek's access rights exist regardless, and that the public will be ill served without the concessions he won during negotiations.
But Curtiss maintains those concessions were “fairly insignificant,” and called them “so much paper.”
All agree, however, that the scope of access allowed by historic easements will have to be decided at some point.
James McCubbin, a deputy county attorney for Missoula County, is charged with reviewing the legal aspects of subdivision requests. One of those requirements is that the landowners have legal access to the site.
“I think it's entirely possible that a judge may have to rule on the language of some of these easements,” McCubbin predicted.
He's reviewed several of the documents, and says that “while some do, in fact, provide unrestricted access, many more do not.”
“Those issues will be decided on a case-by-case basis,” McCubbin said.
For now, however, the attorney is feeling more grateful than litigious.
“We're very pleased that Plum Creek is acknowledging the public input they've received,” he said. “This is a perfect example of why public input is so critical.”
McCubbin added that Plum Creek's decision to withdraw “puts us in a very good position to move forward as partners on these issues.”
“And that's what needs to happen here,” Tester agreed, “with an open process, where everyone is at the table from day one.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Big Horn:
Having spent hundreds of hours in those land swap negotiations I can say that was hardly "shadey." If not for that land swap and consolidation, Plumb Creek had planned to sell a huge amount their property in the Gallatin and Madison Ranges. The maps would have been one huge checkerboard, with private controlling it, due to the restriction on corner hopping. In the process, the public not only gained 45,000 addtional acres, but preserved and improved access to the other public lands in the Gallatin and Madison ranges.
The piece in question is a small piece that both ski resorts are fighting about at the top of Lone Peak, where they have/want their ski lifts. It was part of the land swap, and given that it is 15+/- inaccessible acres located at over 11,000', it did not have any wildlife value, so the public found it good to include that parcel for trade in exchange for something an animal could live on.
As far as the current Plumb Creek deal in western MT, that is a complete sell out by the Forest Service. If someone wants evidence of the corrupt minds that have infiltrated the highest levels of the USFS in the last eight years, this is a text book case. Follow the trail of money/influence and see why/how Plumb Creek was given such a sweet deal, that in essence, fuggs up some of the best wildlife habitat in western MT.
Bet none of us could have convinced the highest level of the USFS to provide a waiver that allows us to use their roads in a manner that then allows us to develop an exclusive subdivision. Unless of course, you had made some really large donations to the political powers who appoint these "impartial and enlightened" leaders at the highest level of the USFS.
Hopefully it gets klled before final approval.
Now that is "shadey."
I'm digging in my pockets for a donation right now. Hey Big Fin this would be a write off wouldn't it?
Since it is a hunt for two people, I bet if a CPA was invited to be the other hunter, he could probably find a way to make that a charitable donation. In fact, he might even buy the gas and reimburse you for the cost of the ticket.
But, only if he gets to shoot first.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
"Bet none of us could have convinced the highest level of the USFS to provide a waiver that allows us to use their roads in a manner that then allows us to develop an exclusive subdivision"
Actually I believe it will be much easier for an individual with a competant lawyer to gain the access then it was for a big Corp like Plum Creek to pull it off. Getting approval to build such a subdivision....at least in Missoula County will be the real road block for anyone wishing to do this. Lawyers will get their share no matter how it goes, no doubt.
"Follow the trail of money/influence and see why/how Plumb Creek was given such a sweet deal, that in essence, fuggs up some of the best wildlife habitat in western MT."
Thankfully Max's sweet deal for Plum Creek has solved most of your concerns, Big Fin.
Actually I believe it will be much easier for an individual with a competant lawyer to gain the access then it was for a big Corp like Plum Creek to pull it off. Getting approval to build such a subdivision....at least in Missoula County will be the real road block for anyone wishing to do this. Lawyers will get their share no matter how it goes, no doubt.
"Follow the trail of money/influence and see why/how Plumb Creek was given such a sweet deal, that in essence, fuggs up some of the best wildlife habitat in western MT."
Thankfully Max's sweet deal for Plum Creek has solved most of your concerns, Big Fin.
BuzzH
Well-known member
BHR,
Its a sweeter deal for the hunters, anglers, hikers, bird watchers, etc.
Worth every cent.
Its a sweeter deal for the hunters, anglers, hikers, bird watchers, etc.
Worth every cent.
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Big Fin,
Here's a link to what's going on with Plum Creek land in Western Montana right now. Click on the map link to see what sections are involved. Better way to protect habitat than swapping with Blixseth IMO. What say you?
http://www.themontanalegacyproject.org/
Here's a link to what's going on with Plum Creek land in Western Montana right now. Click on the map link to see what sections are involved. Better way to protect habitat than swapping with Blixseth IMO. What say you?
http://www.themontanalegacyproject.org/
BigHornRam
Well-known member
What do think of the chunk we "saved" from development on Bonner Mountain Buzz? Plum Creek must have left 3 or 4 trees up there. Aprox $1800 an acre of taxpayer money for that steep logged over land was a pretty good deal for Plum Creek as well.....would you agree?
BuzzH
Well-known member
I'd think anyone with a firing brain cell would think that buying bonner Mtn. was a good idea.
Gee...isnt there even some BIGHORN rams that live around there somewhere????
Gee...isnt there even some BIGHORN rams that live around there somewhere????
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Sure is Buzz.....and anyone with firing brain cell would question the price paid for such land. I bought 160 acres of easy access, nicely treed land nearby for $1240 an acre. Either I got a screeming deal or the taxpayers got screwed.
Didn't Max get some campaign contributions over the years from plum creek? In Bill Richardsons case they are calling it pay for play, and he may very well get indited.
The problem with the Missoulian is that their investigative journalism practices are inconsistant at best. While they have gone after Rey's dealings with plum creek with loaded guns, they have completely ignored Baucus and the Nature conservancy's involvement in this land deal. I have a lot of questions about what is going on, but so far it has been very hush-hush.
If the PC/FS access negotiations should be an open book (I agree with Tester here, it should), then so too should this taxpayer funded land deal. Agree?
JoseCuervo
New member
Big Whore,
So, do you think the Plum Creek / Forest Circus deal was shady?
Are you in favour of more development in Montana or are you in favour of more habitat protection in Montana?
So, do you think the Plum Creek / Forest Circus deal was shady?
Are you in favour of more development in Montana or are you in favour of more habitat protection in Montana?
BigHornRam
Well-known member
So is Tom Siebel related to Ken Siebel (of Siebel Systems and Mitchel Slough fame)?
BigHornRam
Well-known member
Jose,
The Yellowstone Club was the direct result of the swap of Blixseth purchased plum creek land. Do you favour more development like the Yellowstone club? Wasn't Blixseth trying to do a similar development in YOUR private Idaho, before his divorce/legal/financial troubles?
