By Montucky on 03-10-10
The solution, if there is one, is much more difficult now because few people anymore trust the state or elected officials. Why would things change now?
By Fair Row on 03-10-10
I can’t help but believe that this is just what the state and the environmental lobby want: Force people out of existing leases and then fore go the entering of new lease agreements with others. With no one living on these beautiful lakes they can be ‘restored’ to the natural environment
Getting everyone crammed into urban areas offers better opportunity for controlling the populace. A plus plus for the New World Order gang.
By Merna on 03-10-10
We have a cabin on state-leased land that has been in our family for almost 70 years. After many tears, I have decided to seriously look at purchasing a homesite on the same lake and moving part of our cabin to that site also and abandoning our lease. In the long run, it makes more sense financially although it is very hard emotionally.I don’t believe this is a New World Order issue. It is just an issue of Montrust, the Land Board and DNRC being too greedy for their own good. Good stewards of the trust would recognize that there is a time to reduce rents to keep the leases filled. This situation breaks my heart.
By hotfishmt on 03-10-10
The established houses or cabins…......WHY NOT HAVE THE STATE SELL THE PROPERTY TO THE CURRENT OWNERS…...AND PUT THE $$ IN THE STATE’S FUNDS THAT ARE COMING UP SHORT ??? SIMPLE BOTH PARTIES WIN AND QUIT WASING TIME & EFFORTS. ALL OVER THE STATE…..JUST NOT A FEW PLACES…..SELL THE LOTS…..NOT THE FORESTS.
By Merna on 03-10-10
Many of the leaseholders would love that solution, me included. I think the money wouldn’t be able to go into the state coffers, though. There are strings on how the State Trust money can be spent and whether and how selling the land would work.
By Kalispell Native on 03-10-10
Bunch of folks on Echo Lake are throwing in the towel, as well.
By Bill on 03-11-10
If you talk with anyone at the DNRC they will tell you it is their legal responsibility to get the maximum revenue possible from lease land for the schools. There is no consideration about what is equitable. Unfortunately, as in business, that narrow minded greed will lead to a much lower revenue stream for the schools. Once the state has ruined its own reputation leases will only happen at a deep discount to value. The Caliente Indian tribe who own much of Palm Springs have become fabulously wealthy by keeping their lease rates fair and their reputation intact. The DNRC could learn a little about business from them.
By Fair Row on 03-11-10
The State DRNC people are not interested in learning ‘business-like’ modus operandi. Like the US Forest Service and the National Park Service, they are deeply infiltrated by environmentalists on a mission. And that mission is to remove as much of the human footprint as possible from the land under their control. Anyone who believes the land is managed for the enjoyment of humans is delusional. They all have high and noble sounding mission statements indicating they are ‘managing for future generations’. The reality is the future will see ever more restrictive policies.
By loney@montanasky.net on 03-12-10
Montana’s government is looking at Joe citizen [resident or nonresident- whether it be taxing on state leases or private property] as an endless resource of revenue through property taxation. One only has to look at one of the main reason why people live here and invest here [second homes] is that taxes have been low in comparison to hundreds of other competing communities in other [Arizona Utah Colorado Wyoming Washington ect. ] resort areas. Also how much money do the outside baby boomers have left after this last financial disaster? As far as I can tell they are having a hard time hanging on to their first home let alone coming to Montana and barrowing to buy to buy a second home.
The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.