MT Lawsuit over change in land exchange policy

[Forkyfinder]

Public Land and Waters Access Association is suing the MT land board for their policy update on land exchanges last month.

The new policy states that state land must be devalued based on a lack of access with a "commercially reasonable" discount and eliminates the opportunity for DNRC to veto land swaps before making it to the land board.

It wil be interesting to follow - hopefully folks are paying close attention to land swaps in MT going forward.

From the article:

"In addition, the DNRC would be required to discount the value of landlocked state lands that are inaccessible. Brown said this would encourage the elimination of landlocked parcels, but plaintiffs say it robs the state and the school trust of some money."

State land watchdogs sue over new land exchange rule

Hunters, anglers and public land watchdogs are suing the Montana Land Board for not providing enough notice or opportunity to comment before passing a rule to streamline state land swaps.

missoulacurrent.com

 

[Big Fin]

As someone who has worked on a lot of land exchanges, I watched the arguments about new Land Board rules with interest. The only land exchange I worked on that never got across the finish line was with MT DNRC. Too bad, as it would have increased public access and the property DNRC would have ended up with has far greater wildlife and access value than what was being proposed in the exchange.

Not sure if that could get completed under the new rules. When I have time and we know how these new rules will be applied, I might make another run at that one. Twice it was shut down at the DNRC level under the old rules.

 

[Forkyfinder]

As someone who has worked on a lot of land exchanges, I watched the arguments about new Land Board rules with interest. The only land exchange I worked on that never got across the finish line was with MT DNRC. Too bad, as it would have increased public access and the property DNRC would have ended up with has far greater wildlife and access value than what was being proposed in the exchange.

Not sure if that could get completed under the new rules. When I have time and we know how these new rules will be applied, I might make another run at that one. Twice it was shut down at the DNRC level under the old rules.

I can see how the DNRC would be a hang up in getting things across that are good. To me - they are the same filter against things that are good.

My opinion is it really means putting a lot of trust of the land board to act as proper trustees and the potential for good/bad swaps is elevated on both fronts.

I know that if i was pursuing one for property for myself or someone i was paid to represent - i would be trying to get it done before my bargaining power is subject to change because of a corner crossing lawsuit.

I am skeptical, to put it mildly, that the current land board will act as proper trustees in an enviroment of elevated risk for the beneficiaries.

 

[DP_PublicLands]

I can see how the DNRC would be a hang up in getting things across that are good. To me - they are the same filter against things that are good.

My opinion is it really means putting a lot of trust of the land board to act as proper trustees and the potential for good/bad swaps is elevated on both fronts.

I know that if i was pursuing one for property for myself or someone i was paid to represent - i would be trying to get it done before my bargaining power is subject to change because of a corner crossing lawsuit.

I am skeptical, to put it mildly, that the current land board will act as proper trustees in an enviroment of elevated risk for the beneficiaries.

You’re right on the money.

We didn’t get the opportunity to review or fully understand the changes before they were implemented, and they are big changes. It seems like it might put some weight into access for parcels, the problem is that the state doesn’t think “corner locked” parcels are accessible.

 

[Forkyfinder]

You’re right on the money.

We didn’t get the opportunity to review or fully understand the changes before they were implemented, and they are big changes. It seems like it might put some weight into access for parcels, the problem is that the state doesn’t think “corner locked” parcels are accessible.

Original:


Update:

Yes. I find the specific change (update/orig) highlighted to be very significant in the explicit definition they are not accessible.

Ultimately - if there ever was a single process where i can support gov inefficiency and in general taking too long to weigh every factor and get every approval - it would be for something as permanent as land swaps.