MTNF selloff

[gonefishin]

Doesnt matter what the reason is for selling off Mark Twain public property I am against it. Not that it makes much difference but I have not at all happy with the government here in Missouri for several years. FIrst they said let us put in the lottery and it will put an end to school taxes then it was let us put in casinos and it will put an end to need for school funding now they want to sell off pur public property to to fund schools. Do it for the schools had became a political battle cry to get the public to support new taxes or controversial issues. At this point I have taken the 'just say no" attitude to more funding for the schools. Not that I am agianst education I am simply tired of having the same old argument shoved down my throat. Selling off our public lands is not going to fix any problems with the schools. The basic problem is that all money for schools go into the general fund -- until that is changed there will be no fixing school funding problems. Giving more money to the government does just as much good as giving more drugs to a drug addict.

[jeff]

This concerns me for many reasons. First, when government claims to do things for schools, the money never seems to make it to the schools (especially rural ones). Second, I don’t like the thought of less public land. As someone who enjoys hiking and hunting on public land in SW Missouri, with all of our population growth, I’m worried about availability of public land. Third, who do you think will be buying this land? These are small tracts of land when compared to the whole Mark Twain National Forest, but they are large tracts of land on the market. Large enough that I think the only bidders will be developers and timber companies.

[flyingeagle]

A few things bothers me about MTF sale off.

About 70 plus years ago the government thought that we need to keep some land the way it was and keep it for future gen. They bought huge tracts of land and took it off the tax rolls.

It change forever the way of living in these areas. No hope to build communities, bring in companies etc. The people that stayed, started small saw mills, pole yards, stave yards, etc. They make their living from the forest.

The public lands bought people to them to hunt, which the area people benefited. Now more than ever public hunting is the only way some hunters could afford this sport.

But, now the feds want to change again. The one s that have the saw mills. pole and stave yards, may be forced out of business.

I bet the ones that buy the lands will be large companies, Serria Club, the bottom line is I think that there will be purple paint and gates put up. O' it will be on the tax rolls again but at what cost. Will the schools gain or lose.

Just a few thoughts of mine.

[Brian Sloss]

Hear is another perspective. Now I am not saying they are selling off riverfront property yet, because that has not been made known. But if they did, there would be a public uproar around here (the locals). Why? Because around forty years ago they owned the riverfront land and lost it to eminent domain, mainly because they were too poor to fight it. For instance the Pere Marquette in Michigan has the same designation of scenic and wild and there are still cabins everywhere. Why? They were executives from Detroit and could afford a court battle. Now if they sold the riverfront property to wealthy people or lumber companies there would be some very angry locals down here whose family used to own the land. Beleive me they are still suspecious of the feds because of losing their family land. Many will admit the river is better for their loss today and I agree it is, but if it were turned around and sold to others today, some feathers would be rightfully ruffled. I want this river left the way it is. Just thought I'd throw out another view point I know would be out there.

[flyingeagle]

Hear is another perspective. Now I am not saying they are selling off riverfront property yet, because that has not been made known. But if they did, there would be a public uproar around here (the locals). Why? Because around forty years ago they owned the riverfront land and lost it to eminent domain, mainly because they were too poor to fight it. For instance the Pere Marquette in Michigan has the same designation of scenic and wild and there are still cabins everywhere. Why? They were executives from Detroit and could afford a court battle. Now if they sold the riverfront property to wealthy people or lumber companies there would be some very angry locals down here whose family used to own the land. Beleive me they are still suspecious of the feds because of losing their family land. Many will admit the river is better for their loss today and I agree it is, but if it were turned around and sold to others today, some feathers would be rightfully ruffled. I want this river left the way it is. Just thought I'd throw out another view point I know would be out there.

Brian some of my family owned farms along the Current and lost in court battles, but Alton Box Co. won, of course now it belongs to MDC. But like You said Alton Box Co. had a lot more money to spend.

[Forsythian]

Brian, you brought up an excellent point that I never thought of... flyingeagle, you did too... lots of stuff to think about, that's for sure. Good posts guys.

[Al Agnew]

Flyingeagle, you're right about the big companies being the ones buying up the land, but you're wrong if you think the Sierra Club would buy any of it. Sierra Club, to the best of my knowledge and I've been a member for many years, has NEVER bought any land in MO, or much of anywhere else. Quite simply, they don't have the money to buy land, most of their money goes into paying for lobbying efforts and other political efforts. Maybe you're thinking of the Nature Conservancy, who buys up land that is under threat of development, and then works out things like trades with state parks or other ways of making sure the land is protected but has some public access.

Nope, I guarantee you, if this land is sold the majority of it will be bought by real estate developers who will then break it up into smaller parcels and sell it for a profit, or else build housing developments on it. The rest will be bought by timber companies, or by private hunting clubs. At any rate, you can kiss your chances to hunt on it or otherwise use it for recreation goodbye. And you're right, there will be some original owners of any riverfront property that will be angry about it.

[flyingeagle]

Al I will have to take back water about the Serria Club. I just read that they were against the sell off.

What I was getting at, That land will be lost for public use.

For the most part, I can't see housing developers buy the land. Jobs, schools, towns, malls, is too far away.

Your are right it will take big money to buy the land.

[Wayne SW/MO]

Because the land is owned by all, if they sell it to support a government function, its a tax.

[catman70]

Fellas,

I just got back from Roy Blunt's office here in Springfield. From what I understand the sell off would allow private investors to develop the land which would increase the tax base. The Eleven Point is not in Mr. Blunt's district, so they didn't have any infromation on that. They did claim that most (if not all) of the acrage was donated by folks who passed on or for one reason or another, but it was not seized under eminent domain (again, just in this district). However, I voiced my opinion and learned that Mr. Blunt plans to vote against the measure. My next contact will be with our Senators, but I would urge anyone living to the East to contact your House Representative.