Whose Property Right is it?

[Big Fin]

So, I own property that I want to sell. Should be able to sell it to whoever I want, right?

Well, not in MT. Seems some of these property owners want to prevent their neighbor from selling to the buyer of his choice.

One would hope that the property rights advocates would come running to support the old boy who wants to sell to FWP. So far, no one seems to be defending his rights to sell to whoever he wants.

What a joke. His property. If he wants to sell to the state, his neighbor, the nut house, the cat house, or whoever, he should be able to do it. If you don't like it, then buy it from him.

Just when you thought it couldn't get any stranger, crap like this pops up. |oo|oo|oo

By BRETT FRENCH
Of The Gazette Staff
Bill Meinhardt gets a bit teary-eyed talking about the property he bought 50 years ago out of what he jokingly called "foolishness."

The 172 acres - home to waterfowl, upland birds and whitetail deer - hugs a brushy mile-long stretch of the Clarks Fork of the Yellowstone River about two miles south of Bridger in Carbon County. It's just across the river from where Meinhardt grew up on his family's farm.

Meinhardt, 81, never built on the land. Instead, he and his wife, Columbia, would occasionally pull their 21-foot Prowler camper onto the site and enjoy the solitude and wildlife. More recently, he has leased the property out for farming and grazing.

But now that he's offered to sell the land to the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, his quiet getaway has riled a hornets' nest of protests from some surrounding homeowners, fearful that in state hands the property would be overrun with trash, slob hunters and teenage keggers.

The proposal has even raised fears among ranchers and farmers that the state plans to appropriate water to keep the river flowing during the summer, the argument being: Why else would the state pay $516,000 for a fishing access site along a stretch of river that often runs dry?

"I think we've got some strong arguments," said Charlie Johnston, an adjoining landowner who has vowed to sue the state if the sale goes through. "It's basically like putting a hunting and fishing access point in the middle of Billings."

He noted that 24 homes surround the property, with some only yards from the property line. Concerns by the landowners center on issues of safety for them and their livestock from hunters, traffic, fire and disorderly behavior.

"We are pretty strong against this for a whole variety of reasons," Johnston said.

Access fight
The issue goes to the heart of a long-simmering feud between Montana's sportsmen - hungry for more access to lands for recreation - and landowners concerned about being overrun by rude and sometimes dangerous visitors.

John Gibson, president of the Public Lands/Water Access Association, said it's an issue that always surfaces when land acquisitions are proposed, but he claims the fears don't pan out after the transfers take place.

Gibson's aim is to secure public access for current and future generations at a time when Montana is seeing increasing development of private lands that provide wildlife habitat.

"Ninety-nine percent of the land adjacent to the river is private," he said at a meeting on the land purchase Wednesday night in Bridger. "The public ought to have a chance to get to their river someplace."

Carol Nash, who lives near the Meinhardt property, has mixed feelings about the proposed sale. She's concerned about hunting and, on the flip side, subdivision. But she also understands why it would make a good property for the public to enjoy.

"I don't want to see it developed," she said. "It's a very special piece of property."

Meinhardt admitted to being "quite surprised" by the opposition. He had hoped to preserve the land for others to enjoy by selling it to the state rather than worry about a developer subdividing the wooded acreage his family once enjoyed. But now it's out of his hands as FWP Region 5 manager Gary Hammond ponders whether to approve or disapprove the sale. His decision will be issued at the end of March. Should he approve the purchase, it goes to the FWP Commission and State Land Board for final OK.

State funding
In just a little over a year, the state has spent $5.7 million for access, property or the pursuit of property at 18 sites across the state. The largest was a $2 million purchase of more than 7,500 acres along the Marias River in northwest Montana.

Funding comes from Access Montana, which collected $10 million in general fund money in the last legislative session to secure public access in the state. Near Billings, the funding has been used to purchase the Yellowstone River Wildlife Management Area near Pompeys Pillar and property west of Columbus along the Yellowstone River.

The nearly 4,000 deeded acres purchased near Pompeys also included a bonus - access to more than 5,000 acres of Bureau of Land Management and state lands. And Meinhardt's property abuts a 40-acre BLM site on a sandstone bluff 300 feet above the river.

Since initially proposing the purchase of Meinhardt's property, FWP has scaled back its plans, removing a proposed campground and offering to leave some old structures on the property. Initially, the agency's environmental assessment called for improving fencing, killing weeds and constructing a six- to eight-car parking lot off Highway 72. Future plans, all of which are dependent on funding, include a gravel boat ramp, picnic tables, more parking, primitive campsites and a vault latrine. Hunting would be allowed for shotgunners and archers only.

FWP has targeted riparian areas as the highest priority for acquisition, said Doug Habermann, Region 5's park manager.

"It will be more and more difficult to purchase these for the public over time," he said.

Despite claims by FWP that locals will be most likely to use the property, Johnston and several other property owners are dead-set against the purchase.

"This is not out in the sticks, it's in our backyard," Johnston said. "We're going to the wall on this. Anybody in our position would feel the same."

Contact Brett French at [email protected] or at 657-1387.

 

[Oak]

It sounds like Mr. Hammond needs to hear from some MT sportsmen between now and the end of March.

 

[FLIPPER]

Randy...you are a instigater buy trade aren't you

 

[Big Fin]

Randy...you are a instigater buy trade aren't you

Whatcha talkin' about Flipper?

 

[----]

Unbelievable, what a fricken joke

 

[1_pointer]

That's just about comical!!!

 

[BigHornRam]

Really the only beef that the adjacent landowners should have reguarding this transaction is the source of funding.......Funding comes from Access Montana, which collected $10 million in general fund money in the last legislative session to secure public access in the state. Whether you agree or disagree with their opinions, they do have a say in how this public money is spent.

Interested Sportsman's groups could raise the cash to buy the property, and then donate it to the State, however........

 

[1_pointer]

they do have a say in how this public money is spent.

Really? I thought the state congressmen/women they elected had that authority. Unless MT really is a democracy...

 

[BigHornRam]

Some of you guys seem to think that the funds for the purchase of "welfare" property is unlimited. Maybe there are better pieces of property out there for less money? Has anyone that thinks this is a GOOD buy actually looked at what is being considered for purchase? Didn't think so.

Wasn't the project that Nemont brought up a while back (that Schweitzer said was over priced) to be funded by Access Montana?

 

[cjcj]

You "should" be able to sell whomever you want .... you put it for sale... 1st one that meets your terms... what could be the problem?

 

[BigHornRam]

You "should" be able to sell whomever you want ....

true cj. but, the real question is, should the taxpayers buy whatever you want?

 

[Big Fin]

true cj. but, the real question is, should the taxpayers buy whatever you want?

BHR - The issue from the locals isn't that they are concerned about state money being used, it is that they don't like who the buyer will be - FWP.

That is a completely different argument than how the state is spending their money.

That is an argument trying to tell someone else what they can do with their property, which is some sort of political world opposite my understanding of how free enterprise and capitalism work.

BTW, most of Access Montana money is from hunter and angler license dollars. A very small part of every license purchase goes to that fund, which personally, I am more than glad to be funding.

 

[BigHornRam]

BF,

The locals had a lot of issues according to the article. The only reason any of them had merit is because PUBLIC funds were being used to make the purchase. Otherwise they could pound sand. The seller doesn't have a guarenteed right to have PUBLIC dollars buy his property, does he? Have you seen the property in question? Are their better ones out there? That's the point I'm making.

Any links on the breakdown of funding for Access Montana? License dollars should fund projects like this IMO.

 

[Tom]

I think they have merit in worrying about shots from hunters flying over their houses, in their yards, through the windows, etc. But, that could be addressed with no guns allowed, if it is a danger being in the middle of town, etc.

 

[BigHornRam]

"That is an argument trying to tell someone else what they can do with their property, which is some sort of political world opposite my understanding of how free enterprise and capitalism work."

BF,

Let's say I wanted to buy this property and put a gravel pit on it. My offer was contigent upon getting the proper permits and approval to put a gravel pit there. If the locals opposed this and fought the permit process, would you say that they are interfering with the seller and my private property rights?

Better yet, would you even be concerned? Probably not.

Your case in trying to make this an example of abuse of property rights is pretty lame.

 

[JoseCuervo]

BigWhore is growing more and more like CJ where he keeps beating a single dead horse without any ability to see the other side.

 

[Tom]

This is America, you're free to see any side you want. Beating horses, that would be bad, I'm against that.

 

[Big Fin]

BF,

Let's say I wanted to buy this property and put a gravel pit on it. My offer was contigent upon getting the proper permits and approval to put a gravel pit there. If the locals opposed this and fought the permit process, would you say that they are interfering with the seller and my private property rights?

Better yet, would you even be concerned? Probably not.

Your case in trying to make this an example of abuse of property rights is pretty lame.

BHR:

You example is not even close the scenario at question. The scenario you have given happens all the time. In your scenario, no one has eliminated the potential pool of buyers. The seller has agreed that if he cannot deliver a stated use, which is a value desired by the purchaser, the deal falls through.

Completely different than a group that wants to use their political clout to eliminate a possible buyer from the transaction. If they don't like the party he wants to sell to, why don't they buy it? Because they think property rights only apply to them.

A better example would be that I want to stop you from selling your land to person "X," because I don't like what that person may do with the land.

Imagine if I said Joe Shmoe can't sell his mineral or timber interest to a mining/oil/gas or logging company, because I don't like what they may do with the land. I could hear the screaming and yelling going on in that instance.

If someone's attempt to eliminate the potential pool of buyers is not an infringement on the property right of the seller, I don't know what the hell is.

If you want to feel that way, go ahead.

If I don't like who my neighbor wants to sell their property to, I should either buy the property or keep my mouth shut. Pretty simple.

 

[cjcj]

BigWhore is growing more and more like CJ where he keeps beating a single dead horse without any ability to see the other side.

Eat Me Josehump... W.T.F. are you even talking about|oo

 

[BigHornRam]

"Imagine if I said Joe Shmoe can't sell his mineral or timber interest to a mining/oil/gas or logging company, because I don't like what they may do with the land. I could hear the screaming and yelling going on in that instance."

Happens all the time BF. Same if it was a developer. The adjacent property owners ALL have agendas as to what is in THEIR best interest. More people, same amount of land, more agendas, more conflict. All part of the process in todays world. Whether the locals opposition is sucessful in stopping this sale, that is yet to be determined.

The locals are not opposed to the buyer, they are opposed to what the buyer plans to do with it. You are purposely twisting the facts here. Is all your information reguarding this issue based on this newspaper article, or have you actually visited the property in question? Sometimes newspapers have agenda's too. Sometimes they misquote the people involved. Sometimes they edit quotes. Sometimes they leave out quotes.