[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[at-l] Re: Losing land to AT
- Subject: [at-l] Re: Losing land to AT
- From: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (Walt Daniels)
- Date: 29 Jan 1997 11:35:26 EST
>Just because the government is supposed to buy the land, are they
>absolutely required to buy it? Did they try to make a reasonable
All sorts of alternatives are usually investigated. In the early days
of the land acquisition program, they frequently bought only
easements. These have turned out to be a super pain for managing.
Typically the cost of an easement is 90% of the fee purchase price.
But the easements needs much more frequent monitoring for violations.
And in fact I believe such easements are where many if not most of
the violations occur. Just simple things like, cutting wood on land
you used to have full access to and now only have limited access.
These conflicts also lead to disgruntled neighbors. Better to get it
over with and just buy it outright.
Would you like a "wilderness trail" with all sorts of buildings within
sight of the trail? In such cases one always feels like you are
walking through someones backyard. They might not mind, but you don't
There is no way to make 100% of the people happy 100% of the time.
Many of the cases of eminent domain processes run on for years.
Schagticoke Mt in NY was in the courts for 10 years. It was only
finally resolved by the landowner dying. Quite frankly, although I
have a lot of sympathy for some of the people whose land is purchased,
some of them are obnoxious and only looking to make a quick buck at
expense of the government.
I believe there are some pieces with life estates, but I cannot site any
-----------------------------------------------< http://www.hack.net/lists >--
This message is from the Appalachian Trail Mailing List [AT-L]
To unsubscribe email email@example.com with a message containing
the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body. List admin can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org