[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re[3]: [at-l] A Question Of Trail and other inanities
"...The original (as I wrote it - not as you re-wrote it) read -
>The guy is an ignoramus, but his ignorance is no dumber than the idea that ALL
>private land should be subject to public taking at the whim of the government
>(in particular for the creation of "wilderness") particularly (as RnR seems to
>believe it should be) without compensation or justification." reports Jim in
>claiming I misquoted him when left out parenthetical material.
Well, I'll admit that Jim tries to put too much into a single sentence that
makes it confusing, but let's try to break it down. First he claims RnR is an
ignoramus. Which isn't true. RnR can be wordy, preachy and irritating, but he
knows a lot about the trail.
Then Jim says his (I assume RnR) ignorance "is no dumber than the idea that ALL
(emphasis Jim's) private land should be subject to public taking at the whim of
the government (in particular for the creation of "wilderness") particularly (as
RnR seems to >believe it should be) without
compensation or justification."
As the English language is used by most people, material in parentheses is
parenthetical to the point of the sentence and not essential to the meaning.
Omitting the gratuitous slam at RnR which I think the list is grossly over
doing, and the parenthetical information, the sentence reads, "(H)is ignorance
is no dumber than the idea that ALL private land should be subject to public
taking at the whim of the government particularly without compensation or
justification."
I don't know of anyone on the list who believes this is true and I'm quite
confident that RnR doesn't believe this.
As for the other points Jim makes, I once fell into the trap of answering his
many questions. It served only to bore the list and lead to more rhetorical
questions. So I try not to play that game any more.
Obviously, not all land in Maine sells for $200 an acre. But land in the
uuorganized townships far from any public roads routinely has sold for this
amount. The National Park Service bought most of the 30,000 acres it purchased
in Maine to protect the trail for around that price.
Lately the price has gone up as speculators have discovered the state.
Twenty-five years ago I bought a 23 acre wood lot for $50 an acre located just
three miles from the open ocean. When I gave the wood lot to the land trust 3 or
4 years ago, it was appraised at just over $1,000 an acre, somewhat to my
surprise. Since our household income isn't very high, the gift meant we didn't
have to pay federal or state income taxes for a couple of years.
About five years ago our land trust paid $145,000 for 253 acres, including 3/4
of a mile of water frontage, and a half mile of tarred road frontage. That
figures to somewhat less than $600 an acre. No gimmicks were involved. The
property was listed with a real estate broker and we paid the price the owner
was asking.
The Nature Conservancy recently bought a half million acres of woodland. I
forget the price and don't have time to look it up, but I'll be surprised if the
price was significantly more than $200 an acre. All these prices were based on
appraised values.
The Forest Society of Maine, a private land trust, purchased the development
rights to a million acres for about $35 an acre. Most commentators thought the
society paid too much.
All kinds of acreages were bandied about during the 20-year Saddleback dispute.
The final settlement involves some fee lands and some easement lands. I don't
have the figures at hand, but I'll look them up if anyone is interested.
Sorry I misremembered the price that the government paid for it's hammer. I get
confused sometimes about 15 year old matters. Yes. Jim. I'm amused that I
remembered the price wrong. But I am not amused with the "confrontational
asininity" you rightly report on the list. I think you should stop being one of
the perpetrators.
Weary