"Rich Stern" wrote in message
...

Agreed on both counts. In other words, this is just another
greed-fest grab
for
those with Friends In High Places grabbing public assets.

It's the American way....


I have no problem with privitization of public assets when it's done
to enhance
the interests of the customers of those assets.

But in this case, the customers are well served. Millions of people
use these
resources every year, and few complain about the quality (excellent)
or the
price (nearly free...small tax burden, small burden for various
licenses).

Truly a solution in search of a problem when there isn't one.


-- Rich Stern

You guys get free use of resources the rest of the country subsidizes,
the quality is great, the cost is very low. Of course you don't
complain. :-)

Explain again please why the taxpayers of Minnesota or Mississippi
should pay money so that you folks can have lake cabins for almost free?
And what about the folks in the area who didn't get in on the gravy?
They are paying more taxes than they would if you guys had to pay market
type taxes.

Just a contrary point of view. Same thing happened here in Minnesota
with state land in the school trust that was supposed to be generating
money for schools, but was being leased for cabins on lakes at way below
market rates with no property tax on the land. Took a lawsuit to fix
it.

del cecchi