Brian Sloss Posted March 3, 2006 Author Posted March 3, 2006 The land along the banks of the Eleven Point were siezed through eminent domain. Thanks for your input and taking the time to stop by Blunts office. Glad to hear he will be voting against the measure. A gold star to old Roy in my book! www.elevenpointflyfishing.com www.elevenpointcottages.com (417)270-2497
gonefishin Posted March 3, 2006 Posted March 3, 2006 I hope he keeps his word and votes 'No Sale'! I would rather be fishin'. "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." Benjamin Franklin, 1759
Brian Sloss Posted March 4, 2006 Author Posted March 4, 2006 I contacted Jo Ann Emerson on the 17th and have not heard back yet. I've caqlled and they confirmed receiving my email and promised to get back to me, so we shall see. Jim Talent has not replied yet either. I'm hoping for the best. www.elevenpointflyfishing.com www.elevenpointcottages.com (417)270-2497
catman70 Posted March 5, 2006 Posted March 5, 2006 Talent is a NO, but only becasue he thinks Missouri will get the short end of the stick – not becasue he's against the principal of the matter. Haven't heard back from Kit Bond.
hank franklin Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 As I understand it, the reason for selling is to generate money for rural schools. This point alone is weak at best. Who funds Missouri schools? The state of Missouri. Some federal money flows into districts but mostly it's targeted at special ed and technology. A true and lasting rural school funding initiative should come through the state, NOT the feds. Secondly, what kind of market value are we talking? Those of you living near MTNF areas know better, but we're probably not talking a lot. $2,500 per acre? That's probably the high side for so-called "isolated" parcels. 10,000 acres at $2,500 per gets you $25 million. That's chickenfeed in Missouri education spending. And it's ONE-TIME money. When it's gone, it's gone. Third, this idea that the land would be redeveloped and start generating tax revenue sounds like total BS. What, so we're gonna start seeing subdivisions and Wal-Marts sprout up on these "isolated" parcels? Crazy. The tax benefit in the great majority of cases would be negligible. Taxes on undeveloped land in the Missouri Ozarks in most cases is probably a few bucks an acre (if that). Again, I don't know the details but this thing on the surface smells like a big bad wolf in pretty little sheep's clothing. Good to hear the Mo congressional delegation is calling BS on it.
Root Admin Phil Lilley Posted March 21, 2006 Root Admin Posted March 21, 2006 I agree. It doesn't sound right. I hope a conservation-minded person or group buys the riverfront land and keeps it free from development. If anyone hears of a group like that, post it cause I'd be interested in helping.
Martin Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 Here's a link to the list of maps..... Mark Twain isn't on it and a few others are not on it. They say those are "being corrected"..... http://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/rural-pdf.shtml
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now