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

Re: [at-l] Saddleback

Saunterer wrote:

> From all reports the owner of the ski area isn't financially able to
> maintain the facilities he has. He was willing to sell the property in
> question but at 3-4 times it's appraised value. Neither the NRS or any
> other group could pay that. The only justification for his price is his
> pie-in-the-sky proposal to expand the ski resort. Sooooo.... Where do we go
> from here? If there was no eminent domain we could accept his "gift" which
> is nothing more than the right to walk through. 

Yes, dammit! That would be a start. It's not as though you can't
negotiate for more at a later date. It's not like the lift towers
are going up tomorrow. If they haven't been erected after a seven
year economic expansion, they're not going to appear any time
soon. You yourself just referred to expansion as a "pie-in-the-sky"

>                                                 We could pay an outrageous
> price for the property. We could relocate the trail which was there before
> the ski area. 

I thought Saddleback was priceless; something too important to
go unprotected. Apparently that was all just hyperbole.

> Am I bothered? No. It reminds me of the $600 toilet seats, $1200 hammers,
> etc. The logic is that the "government" has deep pockets and can afford it
> so why not give as much as I can. The trouble is that the government is us
> and it's not the government that's being greedy.

So let me get this straight: You believe that the government, funded
by *your* taxes, doesn't have the money to acquire Saddleback. This
makes it okay to simply take the land and give the owner whatever
"we the people" decide it's worth. Sweet.

No greed there.

mfuller@somtel.com; Northern Franklin County, Maine         $
The Constitution is the white man's ghost shirt.  }>:-/> --->

* From the Appalachian Trail Mailing List |  http://www.backcountry.net  *