[at-l] AT on FOXnews

[app-trail@excite.com (Tim Rich)]

On Thu, 30 Aug 2001 15:35:13 EDT, RoksnRoots@aol.com wrote:

>      Another problem is the fact that the value of nearby land is always 
>  estimated at its full benefit towards development. Land never gains a 
> returnable value by not having the potential to be compromised. How easy
will 
>  it be to maintain a rural quality around the Trail if the speculative
values 
>  skyrocket and need to produce a return to justify their rate? This
doesn't 
> happen in a vacuum. The route from there is ALWAYS downhill, and ALWAYS
leads 
>  to a cut into wildness. There is no easy way to keep things wild. My
point 
>  would be, although some legitimate cases of owners being victimized by
too 
>  general application of rules definitely does exist, this in no way 
>  invalidates the need to preserve open space. It worries me that this
isn't 
>  mentioned within the criticisms on an AT site. We have a wealthy enough 
>  society that it's a shame that it couldn't be arranged for the 
>  environmentally interested to take ownership of these devalued
properties. I 
>  feel because of the fact that we operate at the margin of cutthroat 
>  compromise, and view everything strictly in terms of fulfillment of 
>  individual rights, we miss the opportunity to create exceptional societal

> arrangements above and beyond the normal heave ho that then serves to
enhance 
>  our life quality. The AT is a good example of one that got through. 
>  
Good Evening,

A property's value is not its current state or current use.  It is its
"highest and best use", that which provides the greatest *economic* return. 
Generally speaking, that is why the purchases of land to remain wild will
often appear to be inflated.  For example, forest slope is valued on its ski
slope potential (again, speaking in generalities - not supporting the
Saddleback valuation).

RnR mentioned how it would be great if the environmentally interested would
buy properties along the trail.  That's happening now, thanks to the ATC,
through the Conservation Buyers Program.  Folks can buy tracts of property
under the agreement that the property will have no, or extremely limited,
development.  The price they pay reflects that use.  I think that's
wonderful and the way to go about it.  Individuals the economic means do it
of their own free will.  The wealth of "society" is not considered or taken
through taxes.

I have a major problem when a government entity arrives and by edict
determines that your property is, for the sole purpose of conservation,
prohibited or restricted from development.  Courts are now finding that the
loss of value on the property due to this type of designation is the
responsibility of the government, much in the same manner as when a highway
is widened and takes almost all of your front yard.  While that might be
only 1/4 acre of "raw land", the impact on your home value is much greater. 

Take Care,

Tim

>From the ends of the earth I call to you, I call as my heart grows faint;
lead me to the rock that is higher than I.  For you have been my refuge, a
strong tower against the foe.  I long to dwell in your tent forever and take
refuge in the shelter of your wings.





_______________________________________________________
Send a cool gift with your E-Card
http://www.bluemountain.com/giftcenter/