[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Thanks, Jim!! was Re: [at-l] Saddleback

     THIS is the best summary yet!!! Man-Jeez-Oh-Pete! Congrats, Jim.

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: [at-l] Saddleback
Author:  "McBride; James" <mcbride_j@lxe.com> at ima
Date:    8/20/99 6:01 PM

Its not really fair to use the Saddleback situation as a case over which to 
argue the merits of eminent domain. Its not really the issue here at all. As 
I understand it, here are the facts:
1) The owner has had the ski resort for sale for a while now. 
2) The ski resort has been losing money.
3) Other ski resorts in the area are losing money or just breaking even.
4) The owner has not expanded nor modernized the resort since he's owned it 
even though he has had permission to do so.
5) His asking price for the property is well above the fair market value.
It would appear that the owner is trying to sell the land at a high price 
based on the idea that a purchaser could expand the resort. If it were so 
lucrative he would have already done so. It seems that its a ploy to jack up 
the price.
And for the record, I am normally opposed to eminent domain. But I really 
don't think its the issue here.
One last time, I urge anyone who wants the AT accross Saddleback to remain 
as it is to write a letter to the NPS supporting option 1. Write your own 
letter or use WF's site.
Jim McBride
* From the Appalachian Trail Mailing List |  http://www.backcountry.net  *
* From the Appalachian Trail Mailing List |  http://www.backcountry.net  *