-CaseyCasey, it boils down to he can do a trade because he has money. You and I can't. Actually, I can't because I don't own land on Wolf Creeek Pass to trade.
From the article: The proposed trade would exchange 178 acres of private land for 204 acres of Forest Service land a bit farther away from Wolf Creek Ski Area. A Forest Service land appraisal suggested the federal land is worth less than the private land. My read is that the land is worth less per acre (thus thus the swap of 178 acres for 204 acres).
If the 204 is truly less then why trade? Obviously it's not worth less. And if you or I try to get 10 acres here and trade for 5 there we'll get the flat out NO and they wouldn't look twice at us. Classic example of tax payer funded land being whored out to the rich. I think the above explanation will help you here.
Conspiracy is usually always based in some sort of truth or fact: Federal audit blasts Denver Stapleton airport land deals - The Denver Post Surely this was appraised according to policies and procedures. Surely someone checked to see if Tom Cruise's land was actually ag. land. $400 in taxes? I guarantee if I put a sheep on my land and try to get an ag break the assessor would laugh me out of his office.Hojo-
-Another example is saying things like "who exactly is doing this appraisal?" In the article it clearly says a "Forest Service land appraisal". My assumption is that it is either the Forest Service doing the appraisal, or they have a set of guidelines that the 3rd party appraiser must follow. Either way, if it is a concern, research it! Don't imply that there is wrong doing, just because you don't know.
Ultimately, I don't think I'd get along with Ol Red, but at least his motivations are transparent (to make as much money off his land as possible). In this issue, everyone needs to ask themself what their motivations are and whether or not they are applying them equitably. Am I against this because he's from Texas? Am I against every Texan? Jack Johnson? Lee Harvey Oswald (bad example)?
Me personally, I just like the process and the debate.
Two things-I think the term you're looking for his hypocrisy. And "a" shady land deal? I think they said something like, "The GAO report was the 11th government audit in the past four years to criticize land exchanges -- the 12th was
issued just days ago by the inspector general of the U.S. Department of Agriculture."
Ok, I get it...but I still want to know what is shady about this Forest Service land appraisal? I'm ok with being upset if there is something to be upset about. I'm just not sure that there is something to be upset about in this instance. What is it? Share it with others so that they too can point out the injustices during the public comment time.
From where I sit, his ownership of that land is protection enough since he can't build on it. And the major difference is that the ski area is occupying land that's still public and still under the rules of land management. Sorry, but land developers have a history of pillaging. If it goes though with legitimacy then I'll be less concerned. If the locals don't want it and it goes through I'll be sad that money won out over public interest.
When I see 204 for 178 I get concerned. Not the biggest of disproportionate values but it means a gross loss of our public land. That is an injustice, no matter how slight. Sadly, we will see more and more go if we stay on this idea of deficit=bad. How did Regan get away with it anyhow?Two things-
-Land developers may have a history of pillaging, but they also built my house. I'd have to be a hypocrite to point fingers while at the same time sitting back and reaping benefits from them.
-Unfortunately, locals aren't the only ones who own the land. It is federal land and belongs to all the citizens. Local voice should be considered, but not to the exclusion of all the other voices.
That is irrelevant. In this particular case they are not allowed to build on these wetlands.I'm playing devil's advocate (it helps people examine their position for flaws)
-You can build in wetlands. It is done all the time. You do have to replace those wetlands.
A ski area services many, while a development services far fewer, in this particular case at the cost of another recreational area.-I can think of no reasoning why one would be against the village and for the ski area or vice versa (why it is ok for one group to clear-cut and replace with concrete and steel, but not another).
I don't know enough about the area or details to provide a strong case against this. I think a cumulative impact argument looking at all development established and likely in the future will tear down this objection.-The environmental impact of the ski area is astronomical to anything Red has done up to this point and will probably still be much larger if ol Red gets his way.