PUBLIC LAND SELL-OFF

[buttshot]

I went on the website mentioned above, pretty amazing. One parcel listed in Salt Lake county is completely surrounded by private property, at the very foothills in Draper. Little bit below the entrance to Corner Canyon. Knowing that area a little, the parcel is completely surrounded by huge homes. If anybody gets that one, wooaa, the income potential there.
There are a bunch listed in Uintah county, not totally familiar but Bobcat should be.
Everything is listed by state and county, some of the listings have no description, I'm going to keep watch here in Utah and do some research, maybe get lucky enough to find something away from the big city....

 

[TFinalshot]

in the long run that open space in the middle of houses will be worth much more to the comunity as a park or open space or a place to build a new school than it would be sold now to a private developer! Keep in mind public land is to be used for the benifit. Turn the piece into opens space for birds, wildlife, a park a etc.

 

[mtmiller]

I disagree Tony. That land is for the most part not much use to the sportsman or for wildlife habitat (if it is indeed a small parcel and completly surrounded by housing). I will guess because of the value of this land, there could be some very good trade opportunities out there to block up other public lands, provide access to other public lands or protect more valuable wildlife habitat.
I can't let you be right on every topic.;-)

 

[TFinalshot]

LAST EDITED ON Apr-03-06 AT 07:34AM (MST)[p]Hey Mt, guess what, Central Park in Manhattan once was available for development but now it's the prize park for cities all over the world. Open space is in some areas, the most valuable property. It also can not be replaced once it's gone.

I don't disagree however, that that property might not make good wildlife habitat in the western context. Moreover, this thread, and this discussion really is about selling the public land to generate revenues for Katrina, and that's my measuring stick. When did the focus of this thread change to trades etc, or even sales outright, as one poster has said, he would need to see the money from the sale go back into the public lands system and not to Katrina.

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but remember the point was selling public land for Katrina and in that context, I'd prefer to keep the land that's completely overrun by houses, even it stays undeveloped. There is not option for trading it or selling it and the proceeds go for other public land sales or trades. . .

 

[TFinalshot]

I was a bit mistaken, this thread was about selling public land for public schools and not Katrina, however, the same principles apply to both ? in any event, trade-offs or sale to generate moneys to help block up public land was not the subject

 

[mtmiller]

Sorry Tony, I would hate to get off subject (heavy sarcasm by the way). This is post #105 and I promise not all of them have been specific to the funding of rural schools. I brought up the land exchange very early in the thread and so did Bannock (whose opinion I respect). Lots of other non-specific comments as well, but I didn't want to read through all of this again.

Just sit back and say, "Gee Craig, a land exchange would be a be a better idea then selling the land." Sure beats your Central Park analogy. haha...

BTW, turkeys next weekend and when are you getting over here for some grouse shots. Needs to be during the week from here on out as turkeys and bears are on the menu in my free time.

 

[TFinalshot]

I cant concede 100%, you know me mt. I will say that a land trade, if a good deal for the public land managers and the public's resources would, overall, be better than selling it off to the highest bidder.