I am HOPPING MAD....

Help Support Steer Planet:

DLD

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 15, 2007
Messages
1,539
Location
sw Oklahoma
Show heifer, as Red said, I had a nephew that was killed in the OKC bombing. I just mean that I do understand where those families are coming from. I'm glad that you don't need that reminder, unfortunately most people that haven't been somehow directly affected by one of these acts of terrorism still feel that it happened somewhere else, to somebody else, but that's just not true. They were attacks on all of us, those that died were just the unlucky ones they happened to hit.

I understand where you're coming from when you ask why one person deserves a memorial, and another doesn't. But I think these memorials are about more than just the individuals that perished there... these are events that touched the whole country, and they change and shape our future. I think that warrants preservation of the sites of these tragedies.

I do agree though, that the size and cost of this proposed memorial is outrageous. I also agree that the landowner is due reasonable compensation, even something more than "fair market value", but who's to say how much more is reasonable...

David
 

red

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
7,850
Location
LaRue, Ohio
Thank you David, I was concerned I was mistaken. In way,I'm sorry I wasn't.

Also Show Hef, great topic. Never apologize for making us think & question what is going on in our lives, country & world. We all tend to get so wrapped up in our own lives we forget the bigger things out there. You did good on this one in my opinion!

Red
 

Jill

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
3,551
Location
Gardner, KS
We happen to live in a town where the Santa Fe Trail, Oregon Trail and California Trail divided, on the highway they have a circle drive that takes up maybe 5 acres there is a tribute stone type of deal that tells the history of the site and it has a couple of park benches and such.  There is almost always someone pulled in there this time of year.  It is very cost effective and manageable and I think fulfills the same purpose as a 58 million dollar memorial.  I am not saying some type of memorial isn't needed, however,  I feel a memorial where they are wanting to build it is more for the families than for the country, how on earth can you justify spending my tax dollars on a 58 million dollar park?
 

chambero

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
3,207
Location
Texas
Article from Yahoo posted below.  I've highlighted some info I find interesting.  As with many of these "They are trying to take my family's land" cases, there is often misinformation on both sides.  I may come across as the "bad" guy again, but this isn't the family farm they are trying to take.  The land is owned by a privately-owned mining company.  For the 273 acres, he's only asking $36,630 per acre ($10 million) even though he thinks its really worth $50 million ($183,150 per acre).  When land prices get up in that range, its big business on both sides - not big government stomping on the little guy.

There is no imminent domain "take" going on here, this is a business negotiation.  Nobody is forcing anybody to do anything yet.  I agree the 2,000-acre idea is ridiculous.  I'm surprised there are apparently that many visitors going there this long afterwards.  I bet he can't produce actual checks where he spent $10,000 per month, unless he was already paying for that kind of security to keep someone from falling into a mine shaft or strip mine.  That dollar amount doesn't pass the common sense test.

SHANKSVILLE, Pennsylvania: Two employees of the National Park Service used a garbage bag and duct tape Wednesday to cover up an unauthorized box erected to receive donations at a temporary memorial where visitors pay homage to the 40 victims of United Flight 93 who died on Sept. 11, 2001.

The development was the latest in a strained relationship pitting the Park Service and a group representing the victims' families against the owner of the most critical piece of land for what is to become a permanent Flight 93 National Memorial.

"It's really sad we have to do this," Joanne Hanley, superintendent of the memorial, said after helping cover the box, which, bearing a drawing of an American flag and the words "Flight 93 National Memorial," was thought by visitors to belong to the Park Service. "But we need to protect the public interest and to be able to tell the story in a dignified manner."

United 93 was on its way from Newark, New Jersey, to San Francisco on Sept. 11 when it was hijacked and then crashed in a field near this town in western Pennsylvania. The following year, Congress authorized the Park Service to create a permanent memorial but stipulated that the government could not invoke eminent domain for it. All sales of property were to be voluntary.
The most crucial property is 273 acres where both the crash site and the temporary memorial, which overlooks the site and is less than an acre in all, are situated. It is owned by Michael Svonavec's family mining company.

Svonavec, who put up the donation box on Saturday, says the dispute surrounding it has less to do with confusion on the part of visitors than with an effort to pressure him to sell cheaply. He says he sought the donations as a way to pay the $10,000-a-month bill for security he has provided since March, when the federal money that was paying the county sheriff to patrol the crash site and the temporary memorial ran out.

Though the Park Service says it does not need security there - there have been just two cases of vandalism reported in the last five years - Svonavec says that with thousands of visitors a week, he has liability concerns. Whatever the case, the Park Service, which controls the temporary memorial site under an agreement with him, had given him until Friday to remove the box.

The Park Service has been working for more than four years on a $58-million memorial plan involving about 2,000 acres. It is expected that up to 1,300 acres will be bought by the government or the families, with the rest protected by easements that restrict development.

Two small parcels totaling 60 acres have already been bought. But about a dozen landowners have not reached final agreement, including Svonavec, whose family has owned its parcel, former mining land, since 1961.

Svonavec says he began negotiating with the Park Service to sell most of his property - he intends to donate the several acres that are the crash site - about three years ago. The Park Service made an initial offer of an undisclosed sum last year, but he refused to even look at it, he says, because it was not based on an appraisal that the agency had obtained. The agency has not explained why it rejected the appraisal.

Families of Flight 93 then entered negotiations, ready to spend much of the $1 million that Universal Studios had donated to the group after release of the movie "United 93." Patrick White, vice president of the organization, said it was during these talks that Svonavec said he thought the land was "worth $50 million, but you can have it for $10 million" - much more than the half a million the group had contemplated.

Svonavec denies making that remark. In fact, he says, he does not know what the land is worth because he has not obtained an appraisal himself, although he is preparing to do so. Now, he says, he is refusing to negotiate with the families group and is simply waiting for the Park Service to complete a second appraisal so he can sell the property and put it all behind him.

"I'm not a public relations person, I'm a mining engineer," he said. "It hasn't been fun."
 

Jill

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
3,551
Location
Gardner, KS
Whether he is the family farm or big business really isn't the point, it is private property and he can do what he wants with his property.  Like it or not at this point it is called trespassing, I can tell you for sure I wouldn't want the liablity of people coming on to my property.
 

chambero

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
3,207
Location
Texas
They already had some kind of agreement in place with the NPS or it would be trespassing just as you said.

"Everyone" (used in a general term - not in reference to the folks on this board) thinks private property owners have the right to do whatever they want to on their land - until your (again - not meaning specifically you folks) neighbor starts trying to build something next door to you that you don't like (landfill, concrete batch plant, incinerator, airport, low-income housing).  At that point, the public goes screaming to their councilman, mayors, regulatory agencies, etc. begging them to come in and stop them.  So much for private property rights.

The government can't win from a public viewpoint standpoint.  I would guess in this case that land in that area was not selling before the crash for nearly what those folks are asking for it now.  If you could get the landowners to be honest, I bet they don't want to walk away from the negotiating table.  This is is a chance to for them to cash in. 
 

knabe

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
13,639
Location
Hollister, CA
appraisals are relatively cheap to obtain, particularly on ag land, and particularly if it has mineral rights that have been used in the past.  i view that the land is worth more due to the "windfall" of the disaster, and he should be afforded more, to cover not only the land, but a suitable enterprise cost moving reimbursement as well.  to often, eminent domain has been used to offer under, or at most, fair market value, without factoring in the cost of moving the business, establishing the business with a new location etc.  this is the part of implied contracts that has been abused in the name of progress like the kelo decision and others that are occurring in the bay area in CA.  the public good has turned into the government good of raising property tax revenues so governments can hire more people, pay more benefits for longer periods of time for less work (council members in particular).  even if the guy is not really earning any money off the land, and even if values have gone up because of the "windfall", it's higher price will allow for a smaller memorial.  our verterans memorial in town is of sufficient size to make me walk there every year and salute, even though i know no one there whose plaque is on the ground.  this is greed.  this is why we used to not crime victims decide punishment when they are grieving.  we do now by allowing them to influence the judge and jury at sentencing because sentencing has gotten so far out of hand, and needs improvement with it's blindness.  see other thread on paris hilton.    ;D
 

knabe

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
13,639
Location
Hollister, CA
here's some info, podcasts, and of course a book, about how our current health care got started and how one can think about not think so much about the following comment, which i have no judgement for or against.


"Imagine yourself a politician - with their real responsibilties - how do you deny such requests without being coming across as cold and uncaring."


http://dhogberg.com/wordpress/

 

garybob

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 4, 2007
Messages
1,634
Location
NW Arkansas
again, I say (albeit more tactfully this time), that you guys have no idea how you'd react to this topic of being offerred -by force- "fair market value" for your property .when faced with a real threat to what you ( or your father-in-law) have worked to build. Imagine, if you will, a subdivision being planned for the "Big Tank Pasture", and there being a dude, who, in spite of being a cattleman himself, told you he didn't care, "it was just business" . How would you react?

I don't buy your callousness for a minute! You'd be" hopping mad".

I do however, like the Smokey and the Black, blaze-faced Simmental cow pictued.
 

Jill

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 20, 2007
Messages
3,551
Location
Gardner, KS
garybob said:
again, I say (albeit more tactfully this time), that you guys have no idea how you'd react to this topic of being offerred -by force- "fair market value" for your property .when faced with a real threat to what you ( or your father-in-law) have worked to build. Imagine, if you will, a subdivision being planned for the "Big Tank Pasture", and there being a dude, who, in spite of being a cattleman himself, told you he didn't care, "it was just business" . How would you react?

I don't buy your callousness for a minute! You'd be" hopping mad".

I do however, like the Smokey and the Black, blaze-faced Simmental cow pictued.
AMEN!!
 

Show Heifer

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 28, 2007
Messages
2,221
After reading all of these post (sometimes twice), I have come up with the following:
I live in a rural area. Biggest town in 5 miles away, and it has 500 people! I love it. I believe with all my heart that agriculture is what makes the world go around. "We" feed the world. "We" produce darn near EVERY product found in a city to buy. Food, leather, fuel (some anyway), fiber, clothing, etc...so it makes me BEYOND MAD when I see ag land, either pasture or crop land, being turned into houses, businesses, monuments, highways, "wetlands", etc. Because the way I see it, once it is gone, IT IS GONE FOREVER. And the more concentrated the ag land becomes, the more resistance we are going to receive from the "city folk that are uneducated", because then we have animal confindments and use more fertlizer to produce more corn per acre.
I hate to drive by big cities and see suburbs popping up. It makes me sad. Really sad and scared for what is to come. :'(
So regardless of what it is being built, I think the land owner should have priority rights. Eniment Domain to hell. Just because it is legal, doesn't make it right.
 

chambero

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
3,207
Location
Texas
I was just trying to offer some insight from the "other" side.  Technically, in my business we aren't on the other side - in fact we get paid to analyze both sides of the situation from an independent viewpoint.  I have to evaluate things unemotionally from both sides of the issue.  My company isn't the decision-maker - but we identify and quantify the effects of the proposed action.

You probably won't believe me, but government agencies don't get to just run over people and do what they want to.

When they are trying to take your land, it is "personal" and it is not pleasant.  And if my family's land were involved (part of one property probably will be someday as it is in a designated reservoir location), ofcourse we'll "negotiate" as hard as we can.  Its usually not nearly as contentious as the media portrays.  Usually there are very good incentives offered to expedite the project.  The government can't just do it.  If a landowner truly wants to contest it to the "hilt" and take it to court, it is very, very expensive for the project "proponent" and they had better have a rock-solid argument and need when the case goes before a judge. 

My point was that these issues are never black and white.  Government agencies aren't intentionally trying to be "mean", but there are some types of large-scale infrastructure projects (reservoirs, roads, landfills, etc) that can only be put in certain places.  Many of these things directly benefit agriculture (often agriculture is the single-biggest beneficiary of water and flood-control projects).

Again - I wasn't trying to insult anyone or downplay the sensitive nature of these types of issues.  I was just trying to provide a little different perspective.  The right of imminent domain has been around a very long time - in fact its something that every government in the world has always had to exercise.  Its ugly and cold-hearted sometime, but it was absolutely necessary to create the country we have now.  I would just caution you that when you read about these cases (or heaven-forbid get involved in one on the wrong end), keep in mind some of this background.  You never now when it might come in handy for you or someone you know.

I've said enough on this subject.  Again, I didn't mean to stir everyone up.
 

knabe

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
13,639
Location
Hollister, CA
the reason eminent domain is a problem, is that developers have purchased land around cities at dirt cheap prices, "allowing" farmers to farm on this land, while they receive a tax break for keeping it in production.  they "elect" themselves without providing the information of who they represent, then delcare areas blighted, ie not generating enough property tax revenue so they can pay the gov't employees pension and health care.  in my area, since 1990, the city has grown from 20,000 to 35,000, yet property taxes has increased 300%, and this is without the growth mandate of 5% required by the state of california.  they are forcing water into our area, to foster growth because there is little area to grow in the city areas in ca.  they constantly use eminent domain to provide "services", declare sanctuary city, sanctuary state status to populate the state in a pyramid scheme on the backs of taxpayers.  the taxpayers keep saying no, not one single intitiative passed in santa cruz county just last week.  the only reason we need emininent domain projects, is because our economy is based on a pyramide scheme, and requires growth, or more chairs, just like in the game musical chairs so that even when the teacher says, ok everyone get up and circle, the state provides more chairs, grabs tax dollars and everyone sits down again.  this is why our bond rating as a state and a country is so poor.  this is why we have inflation.  the governments job is to hold prices to a smoooooooooooth line of inflation, ie food, so no one will notice we have outrageous inflation and declining purchasing power.  eminent domain is nothing more than government madated resource reallocation at the expense of not enforcing the law, immigration law to some extent, even though we allow almost a million new citizens each year.  if eminent domain was required to actually respond to market prices, there would be less of it, since the taxpayer is essentially using their tax dollar to commit finacial suicide, while the developers get rich.  the final problem with eminent domain of "open, ag type land", is that they aren't making any more of it.  we keep paving over our best soils, all in the name of providing a home depot, walmart experience for everyone.  just to consolidate profits to fewer and fewer.  i would like a stabel population, and government policies to reflect that.  i would like to see the child tax credit limited to 2 kids.  i would like to see the government not be able to vote for itself as the owner of parcels for the purposes of raising taxes to finance further taking of land, taxes, freedom.  this is accomplished by the government getting to vote as parcel owner for any issue the government comes up with.  only property tax paying voting citizens with a name should be able to vote on these type of items.  this is taxation without representation.  wake up people. 

here is a website which has a graph of how smoooooooooooth the inflation curve is for food versus other items in a graph of the cpi for 1978-2004.  interesting that medicare is actually parallel to a few items.  not on here is salary information.  interesting how consumption of disposable goods(what ends up in the dumpster, garage sales, goodwill) is fueling our deficit at the expense of losing the legacy knowledge to manufacture anything.  soon we will no longer be able to make tools for our military, and then it will be over.  all because of eminent domain and our desire to conquer ourselves and freedom.  well, i guess i could have left out that line. ;D

http://www.oftwominds.com/blog.html
 

DL

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2007
Messages
3,622
This reminds me a bit of the social, emotional, political,economic  and other havoc that bovine TB has caused and continues to cause our state

you have cows - the state and USDA require the be tested for TB because a + cows was somewhere near
you have cows - 10 of them are suspects on the caudal fold test
you have cows - 9 of them are positive on the confirmatory test
you have cows - the state says they must all be slaughtered to move forward the bovine TB eradication effort
you have cows - you spent 40 years developing your genetics and the state wants you to depopulate (you will be "fairly" compensated
you have cows - no one tells you that while the state wants you to depopulate there is another option (test and cull)
you have cows - and your kids are heartbroken because the fair heifers need to be killed
you have cows - the state takes them and kills them
you don't have cows and you never recover.....
 

knabe

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
13,639
Location
Hollister, CA
more

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/search?fulltext=grants+pass+oregon&submit.x=0&submit.y=0&submit=GO


just read the paper on how idiotic our forest service is.  nowhere, nowhere is it cited a management plan to compare against the two extremes a plan that would allow thinning.  the forest service can't even see to it to cut down a single tree anymore.

actual quotes from article

when sampleing for the salvage-plant question, we constrained the smaple universe to the areas within the norther silver fire perimeter, areas within PAGs that contained management units and either burned at high severity in 1987 and received no or minimal postfire management, or areas that burned at high severity and were clearcut during 1988, 1989, or 1990, and then planted in the years following and certified by the RSNF as an established conifer plantation.  ALL OTHER MANAGEMENT UNITS WERE EXCLUDED.


I WISH THEY WOULD JUST ADMIT IT.  WE WANT ALL LAND BY EMINENT DOMAIN AND SCIENTIFIC PROOF YOU ARE DESTROYING IT AND IT REQUIRES GOVERNMENT CONTROL.

THIS IS YOURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR TAX DOLLAR AT WORK.  WAKE UP.  SOON, ALL CATTLE WILL BE ON FORESTED LANDS AND OWNING LAND WILL BE ILLEGAL.  IN ONE REGARD THIS WILL BE SEEN AS A GOOD THING SINCE THE CAPITAL COSTS WILL BE MUCH LOWER.  JUST THINK, YOU CAN EVEN OPEN A PETTING ZOO ON GOVERNMENT LAND THEY CAN CONFISCATE FOR ANY REASON.

GETTING INVOLVED IS JUST TOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO HARD.


THINK ABOUT IT, TREES ARE MADE OF CARBON, AND IF USED WITHOUT BURNING, TAKE CARBON OUT OF THE ATMOSPHERE AND SEQUESTER IT.  WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

knabe

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2007
Messages
13,639
Location
Hollister, CA
ok here's another one.

http://www.wcsh6.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=63283

no link to the website was to be found on any story in the press about it.  i found it for you.

http://www.ewg.org/

pik payments for wheat in the county where our farm is.  can see a few people i know.  most of the "big" recipients farm 5-10,000 acres.  note these subsidies are for 10 years.  they are not getting rich by any means.  just seems like the money should have to filter to the actual farmer first, then churn to absentee owners along the way, particularly if the $ is from the taxpayer

http://www.ewg.org/farm/top_recips.php?fips=40151&progcode=total

this could be recovered by landowners by charging more rent and allowing freemarkets to help decide the subsidy for absentee owners.  of course we can't allow that.  kinda like pork bellies and other commodity markets where most of the trade is by people who will never take delivery.  not sure what the solution here is.  my aunt benefits from this, she is happily selling wheat right now she shares with the guy who farms our miniscule farms of which most is in taxpayer assisted pasture that is kind of a pain to manage with severe restrictions.  difficult to control johnsongrass, particularly next to fields that are rotated with milo and wheat.  that's why we have some we converted without assisstance, as well as some converted at the expense and maintenance of a pumping station that recently expanded on some property we own (very little revenue), still, it now helps supports my aunt, who recently retired.  previous, it helped my grandmother.  most of our land is collecting topsoil dust, and building a seedbank of johnsongrass seed. :mad:

and on the eminent domain issue, a farmer across the road was given permission to change a stream course, which forced the stream to our side of the road and washed out several acreas of great farmland.  we are suing, to be compensated only by moving the stream where it was.  basically what the guy did was dam up the stream, forcing it down the road, of which our side was lower and it washed out a quarter mile of farmland.  damn government.  damn "eminent domain".  same situation on land on the other side of the family.  guy straightened a stream without permission this time. and wiped out about 40 acres.  all in the name of progress.  modus operandi, go ahead and do it, apologize later, and still do nothing, except screw you over some more.  all the while, you can't farm on your land.  why isn't the offender suffering??????????????????  oh, he's busy buldozing the runoff down the road on his land because it's topsoil.  damn army core of engineers.
 
Top