Let’s be civil. The Flathead Beacon encourages vigorous discussion and lively debate, but we will delete comments that attack other readers, make accusations we can’t verify, stray too far off topic, criticize local businesses (call them if you have a problem), convict someone of a crime, use profanity or are simply judged to be in bad taste. We don’t always have someone moderating comments, so we ask for your help: If you see a comment that violates these ground rules, or you simply deem it offensive, please e-mail editor [at] flatheadbeacon.com. The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.
By Spage on 01-24-08
Consider the alternative. For example, owners could chop up their property and sell it off in smaller parcels to make money on their investment in the land. And the next owner could do the same. So on and so on, until these lands are much smaller. All of them would likely make money on the deals as they go (as any of us would hope to do on an investment). Additionally, preserving intact acreages can be extremely difficult when estates are involved. The lands can end up being divided and sold off. Yes, there is a tax incentive benefit to them to preserve these open properties. Yes, it is a cost to the general public. But in theory the public benefits from these lands remaining intact. Perhaps we only benefit indirectly but there remains a benefit. It may be a bitter pill to swallow for some who do not have the deep pockets of some of these folks and resent their money, but how can we expect anyone to give up their value in the land they own, for nothing? Many of us would not even consider placing conservation easements on our lands because of the potential resulting diminished value of funds we may need later in life. If these same landowners still own these properties 30 to 40 years from now it may surface they have given up very significant values in their property. Lucky us that they took advantage of the incentive and didn’t chop up their property. We must also respect those who choose to sell of their land in smaller parcels. It is their land to own, sell or put under a conservation easement. Do they have an agenda? Probably. Do we benefit? Probably. Can just any of us just go and use that land? Probably not. Probably not before the easement. Probably not after the easement. Not when it is a large private open space and certainly not if the open space becomes ranchettes. Think it through a little further before you rush to judgement. Consider the alternative impact of not having these incentives in place. It’s complicated but ultimately the general public has been given the opportunity to preserve the open space that is privately owned through a tax incentive to the private landowner. Down the road this will be viewed as a win-win process.
Beacon Readers Rated This Comment:
In order to post comments you must register once with the Beacon and be logged in. Log in below or register now.
‘The Defining Story of This Band’
Glacier’s Quick Road to the Top
Giving Comfort When There is No Cure
Schweitzer Rejects NMAR’s Request for Special Session
Political, Agriculture Leaders React to Buffett’s BNSF Purchase
Comments on: Helping Trophy Ranchers
Let’s be civil. The Flathead Beacon encourages vigorous discussion and lively debate, but we will delete comments that attack other readers, make accusations we can’t verify, stray too far off topic, criticize local businesses (call them if you have a problem), convict someone of a crime, use profanity or are simply judged to be in bad taste. We don’t always have someone moderating comments, so we ask for your help: If you see a comment that violates these ground rules, or you simply deem it offensive, please e-mail editor [at] flatheadbeacon.com. The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.
By Spage on 01-24-08
Consider the alternative. For example, owners could chop up their property and sell it off in smaller parcels to make money on their investment in the land. And the next owner could do the same. So on and so on, until these lands are much smaller. All of them would likely make money on the deals as they go (as any of us would hope to do on an investment). Additionally, preserving intact acreages can be extremely difficult when estates are involved. The lands can end up being divided and sold off. Yes, there is a tax incentive benefit to them to preserve these open properties. Yes, it is a cost to the general public. But in theory the public benefits from these lands remaining intact. Perhaps we only benefit indirectly but there remains a benefit. It may be a bitter pill to swallow for some who do not have the deep pockets of some of these folks and resent their money, but how can we expect anyone to give up their value in the land they own, for nothing? Many of us would not even consider placing conservation easements on our lands because of the potential resulting diminished value of funds we may need later in life. If these same landowners still own these properties 30 to 40 years from now it may surface they have given up very significant values in their property. Lucky us that they took advantage of the incentive and didn’t chop up their property. We must also respect those who choose to sell of their land in smaller parcels. It is their land to own, sell or put under a conservation easement. Do they have an agenda? Probably. Do we benefit? Probably. Can just any of us just go and use that land? Probably not. Probably not before the easement. Probably not after the easement. Not when it is a large private open space and certainly not if the open space becomes ranchettes. Think it through a little further before you rush to judgement. Consider the alternative impact of not having these incentives in place. It’s complicated but ultimately the general public has been given the opportunity to preserve the open space that is privately owned through a tax incentive to the private landowner. Down the road this will be viewed as a win-win process.