Re[2]: [at-l] Maine land prices

[Bob C." <ellen@clinic.net (Bob C.)]

I had written that ">A few weeks ago several questioned my contention that Maine
>wild lands I >>could be purchased for $300 an acre."

Jim,  has a different remembrance. He says, "Naaah - the point of contention was
that it was claimed that the roughly 1500 acre Saddleback tract should have been
sold  to  NPS  for  the  $200  per  that they originally offered. Your own later
statement  that the $300 per acre would only apply to multi-thousand acre tracts
indicated  that  you  might  understand  the  fallacy in that proposition. Was I
wrong?"

***IN a word, Yes. When a landowner, faced with a Congressional mandate that the
trail  be  protected,  refuses to allow appraisers on its land, and when the law
says  the  land  has  to  be  purchased at "fair market value" what is an agency
supposed  to do other than to value the land at what nearby land had sold for. I
don't  remember  anyone  arguing that the original appraisal was appropriate for
the  ridge  line  of  a  ski  area. But it is a fact, until billionaires started
buying  land  as  a  hobby  during  the  past 3 or 4 years, forest land in Maine
routinely  sold for $150-$200 an acre, which is what it is worth when bought for
growing  trees, given the bony, glacier-scoured soils, and the northern climate.
The  price  has increased by 50 percent recently, as speculators like Malone and
Hancock discover Maine. It's an old story. The people who profit from Maine land
investments  are  mostly  from  out  of  state.  We  remember  what  it sold for
yesterday.  They  know  what  similar  land  sells  for in Massachusetts and New
Jersey.

Jim  also  asks  "So, at least in this case, it's $330 per acre for a 54000 acre
tract.  On an inverse scale how much does that make the 1500 acres at Saddleback
worth (per acre)? Well, directly from the article -

">Malone bought his first big forestland parcel from Plum Creek Timber,
>paying $10.5 million for 7,500 acres, or $1,333 an acre,
<snip>
>Four years earlier, he had purchased another 7,400 acres around the 
>southern end of the lake from International Paper for nearly $3.5 million, 
>about $456 an acre. Those prices were considerably more than the $200 to 
>$500 an acre that commercial forestland has generally sold >for in recent 
>years.

"Hmmm  - seems nobody actually knows what the land is worth - so it's worth what
ever the buyer is willing to pay for it then, isn't it?"

***of  course.  That  is  how  land  values  are  established.  The latest price
suggests, however, that he was snookered the first times out, but is learning.

Being  persistant,  Jim  asks,  "I'm  not  real  familiar with the area, but I'm
curious  -  since this tract is apparently along the Maine - Quebec border, what
does  it  have  to  do  with  the Appalachian Trail? How much of the Trail would
actually have been protected if the Land Trust had acquired it? The only mention
of the AT in the article is in connection with another tract - "

***  I haven't seen the maps but as I understand it, both tracts abut the trail.
The  "frontier"  parcel  is to the west of the trail. The second tract abuts the
trail on the east.

Ever  diligent, Jim continues, "My problem, Bob, is in the numbers and location.
54,000  acres would protect a one mile wide corridor for 84 miles of the Trail -
or 42 miles of a 2 mile wide corridor - if it was the "right" 54,000 acres. Fact
is  that with the right negotiator, the land owners (new or old) should be happy
to  sell  off  a mile wide strip of land to NPS (or anyone else) who'd nail that
land  down  for a National Scenic Trail. The value of land that backs onto State
or National forests or parks is usually greatly enhanced. There is, of course, a
fly in that ointment, isn't there?"

***  Flies  are  ubiquitous  in  Maine.  Few  timberland owners -- as opposed to
speculators  -- are going to sell a two mile strip of land adjacent to the trail
in  Maine,  especially if they own other land beyond the strips being sold. They
are essentially land-locking their other lands, making access difficult and wood
harvesting expensive.

Jim  then bores to the point of his communication: "But - who's negotiating with
landowners for that one or two mile corridor? Why not? Is the purpose to protect
the  "Trail"  -  or  vast  tracts  of  "wilderness"  under  the  guise of "Trail
protection"?

***  The Land Trust is still debating these issues, but it is my hope that I can
convince  my  fellow organizers that we what is lacking in Maine is loop trails.
Hiking  in  Maine  may  be  the most intensely motorized sport around. To do any
serious  AT hiking requires two automobiles -- one parked where you begin on the
At;  a  second where you get off the AT. What is needed are places where one can
park,  hike for a day or two and return on a loop trail to the parking lot where
you  left your car. These are common elsewhere on the AT. Except for Baxter Park
such loops are almost totally absent in Maine.

*** I also hope to protect the "viewshed of the trail, which from the high ridge
lines can extend for far more than a two mile corridor.

Finally Jim discloses his motive. "Now I'll tell you why I asked the questions -
I'd  be  willing  to give money to an entity that was actually gonna protect the
Trail.  But  I'm  not willing to give money to an outfit that says they're gonna
protect the Trail and then goes off to protect something else - to the detriment
of the Trail. So - inquiring minds want to know."

*** Well see above. I can assure everyone that I will not do anything that is in
my  judgment  detrimental to the trail. I would suggest that those who think the
goals  as I've outlined them are wise, send money. If perchance the goals change
to narrow the focus of the land trust, I'll let you know.

Weary