Rich Stern wrote:

Rep. Charlie Norwood of Georgia's 9th congressional district, has introduced a
bill (HR 2753, link below) to have the Army Corp of Engineers cede federal
lands above the full pool line of Lakes Hartwell, Russel and Strom Thurmond to
the local counties.

IMO, bad idea. (In the interest of full disclosu I own a lakeside cabin
adjacent to land managed by the COE)

The upside is that the market value of your property could skyrocket. But if it
were me, I'd rather keep the nice unspoiled relaxing cabin than reap a big stack
stack O bucks (OK, well exactly how big a stack?).

The downside is that the market value of your property could become irrelevant if
a county gov't strips you of it, or plays tax games.





I have been very impressed with how the COE manages lakes. The natural beauty
is preserved, inexpensive power gets generated, floods are controlled,
reservoirs are maintained, and citizens enjoy many recreational opportunities.
An example of a successful federal program that serves it's stated purpose and
benefits millions of people. In other words, a rare success.

If the local counties in Georgia and South Carolina gain control of this land,
it will become a development free-for-all.

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....

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

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
www.nitroowners.com - The Nitro and Tracker Owners Web Site
www.mypontoon.com - The Pontoon Boat Web Site
www.fishingreportdatabase.com - The Fishing Report Database
www.mysporttrac.com - The Sport Trac Web Site

Rich Stern wrote:

Rep. Charlie Norwood of Georgia's 9th congressional district, has introduced a
bill (HR 2753, link below) to have the Army Corp of Engineers cede federal
lands above the full pool line of Lakes Hartwell, Russel and Strom Thurmond to
the local counties.

IMO, bad idea. (In the interest of full disclosu I own a lakeside cabin
adjacent to land managed by the COE)


Next time, don't vote for a hard-line GOP congressman who sells out to
real estate developers.





--
* * *
email sent to will *never* get to me.

Rich Stern wrote:

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

Hmm... if you put it that way, it sounds reasonable enough...

The problem is that greed & human nature tend to coincide to produce results
ranging from awful to tragic for anybody not sharing the profits. Of course, those
reaping the bucks always think it's fine. So the best answer is to keep profiteers
hands OFF public assets as much as possible; and/or to shine the bright light of
publicity on the back room deals.

"Public assets" are owned by all members of the public. That's who should get the
benefit.

Getting back to the Corp of Engineers...



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.

Agreed, but not everybody feels this way. I have to listen all the time to what a
bunch of pointy head tyrants the COE is for not letting people build whatver they
want in sensitive areas. The ones that get the least polite response are the jerks
who want to build some big expensive project in a flood plain.

DSK

"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

(Rich Stern) wrote in message ...
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

Del, not quite as lopsided as you depict.

First of all, the lakes generate cheap, clean electricity. That limits
pollution, which is good for everyone. And it keeps us from being in the
market for electricity from other, more electrically challenged regions, which
keeps national prices down.

Second, the lakes help prevent flooding, which keeps insurance costs low, and
avoids "federal disaster area" costs like those racked up by the hudreds of
millions of dollars in places the Midwest.

It's not like the school trust situation you depict. Nobody is leasing the COE
managed land at below market rates. It's there for public use. It's unbuilt.
If you ask nicely, the COE will let you maintain a 4 foot wide path across
their land to the water. If you pay a permit fee, they'll let you have a dock
on their waterline. If you pay a fee, they'll let you camp at one of their
campgrounds. If you pay a fee, they'll let you launch from one of their boat
ramps.

You are welcome anytime. Bring money for fees.


So, let me ask you... If someone were to want to fish from around YOUR
home, how much would it cost... or could they fish there at all? I see
it all the time... they just had to cut down several natural barriers
from the easements to the water in my town... All the local land
owners had grown briars and bushes in them to keep folks from using
them as they ran "to close" to their property.
A contractor wants to build a house in the woods... an
environmentalist already has one! Scotty


-- Rich Stern
www.nitroowners.com - The Nitro and Tracker Owners Web Site
www.mypontoon.com - The Pontoon Boat Web Site
www.fishingreportdatabase.com - The Fishing Report Database
www.mysporttrac.com - The Sport Trac Web Site

So, let me ask you... If someone were to want to fish from around YOUR
home, how much would it cost... or could they fish there at all?

Zero and yes. My home is 250 feet from the water, and my backyard stops 200
feet from the water. The rest of the land belongs to the public. Fisherman
fish around my dock all the time. I usually wake up to people in "my" cove.
It's their cove, too.

A contractor wants to build a house in the woods... an
environmentalist already has one!

I've got no problem with development. There is a vacant lot next to mine that
I may develop if nobody else does. My concern is not continued development, as
has been going on for 40 years. My concern is a completely new model, never
tried before, where a dozen different counties in two states legislate, each
independently, how the land immediately adjacent to a federally managed
reservoir gets used.



-- Rich Stern
www.nitroowners.com - The Nitro and Tracker Owners Web Site
www.mypontoon.com - The Pontoon Boat Web Site
www.fishingreportdatabase.com - The Fishing Report Database
www.mysporttrac.com - The Sport Trac Web Site

In article ,
(Rich Stern) writes:
| 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
|
| Del, not quite as lopsided as you depict.
|
| First of all, the lakes generate cheap, clean electricity. That limits
| pollution, which is good for everyone. And it keeps us from being in the
| market for electricity from other, more electrically challenged regions, which
| keeps national prices down.
|
| Second, the lakes help prevent flooding, which keeps insurance costs low, and
| avoids "federal disaster area" costs like those racked up by the hudreds of
| millions of dollars in places the Midwest.
|
| It's not like the school trust situation you depict. Nobody is leasing the COE
| managed land at below market rates. It's there for public use. It's unbuilt.
| If you ask nicely, the COE will let you maintain a 4 foot wide path across
| their land to the water. If you pay a permit fee, they'll let you have a dock
| on their waterline. If you pay a fee, they'll let you camp at one of their
| campgrounds. If you pay a fee, they'll let you launch from one of their boat
| ramps.
|
| You are welcome anytime. Bring money for fees.
|
|
So if the COE only controls a little strip of land, what are they going to
transfer to the state? Sounded like a whole bunch of land surrounding the res.
was federal property. And it sounded like a bunch of folks getting a free ride,
from a tax standpoint. So how much land are we talking about here?



--

Del Cecchi

Personal Opinions Only

In article ,
(Rich Stern) writes:
|
| So, let me ask you... If someone were to want to fish from around YOUR
| home, how much would it cost... or could they fish there at all?
|
| Zero and yes. My home is 250 feet from the water, and my backyard stops 200
| feet from the water. The rest of the land belongs to the public. Fisherman
| fish around my dock all the time. I usually wake up to people in "my" cove.
| It's their cove, too.
|
| A contractor wants to build a house in the woods... an
| environmentalist already has one!
|
| I've got no problem with development. There is a vacant lot next to mine that
| I may develop if nobody else does. My concern is not continued development, as
| has been going on for 40 years. My concern is a completely new model, never
| tried before, where a dozen different counties in two states legislate, each
| independently, how the land immediately adjacent to a federally managed
| reservoir gets used.
|
|
Also it might be annoying if someone builds a house on that 200 feet of federal
land between you and the lake, once it becomes state land and they sell it off.
I understand your concern with management also. Although the Mississippi river
and Lakes Superior and Michigan seem to indicate that the problems are not
insoluble. The corps would still control the lake.
--

Del Cecchi

Personal Opinions Only

So if the COE only controls a little strip of land, what are they going to
transfer to the state? Sounded like a whole bunch of land surrounding the
res.
was federal property.

With the exception of campgrounds and ramp/parking areas, it is only a small
strip of land, defined by elevation below a certain point above sea level. On
my property, it translates to about 200 feet from the waterline. It depends on
the topology.

I don't know the acreage, perhaps in the many thousands, but quite literally in
the shape of a thin, hollow slice, ghosting the border of the waterline, across
many counties, and two states. Roads and utilities to the land would require
ridiculous easements. Any development would take place very close to the lake,
and would obviously be more envrionmentally impactful than the buffer the COE
currently has established. It's heavily wooded and very clean land because the
COE does a nice job of preventing people from messing it up.


-- Rich Stern
www.nitroowners.com - The Nitro and Tracker Owners Web Site
www.mypontoon.com - The Pontoon Boat Web Site
www.fishingreportdatabase.com - The Fishing Report Database
www.mysporttrac.com - The Sport Trac Web Site