# SB248 MDNR Land Ownership Cap- Please Act!



## 9 (Jan 17, 2000)

> Some talk about our heritage but ignore our legacy. Our legacy is one of misuse of government.
> 
> Read more at Michigan-Sportsman.com: SB248 MDNR Land Ownership Cap- Please Act! - Page 2 - The Michigan Sportsman Forums http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=384447&page=2#ixzz1RStWKLVe


Nope, not at all. Some of us understand *exactly* the difference between our "legacy of crisis" and our heritage. We also understand completely how the "legacy of crisis" was misused by politicians and government several times in the past to literally steal our lands, our heritage, all in the name of a crisis! 

That's exactly why we don't trust the politicians/government of today to give one rats-xxx about preserving our heritage because they didn't before. They knowingly and with forethought, threw the baby out with the bath water all in the name of "crisis" and they'll try and do it again if allowed!

Remember when I wrote that everybody has an ox to gore except their own? Well from the people I've spoken with about this bill who agree or partially agree with it there is one glaring relationship. Neither use public land. One type isn't an outdoors person whatsoever and the other already has their own, large private tract of ground on which they do all of their outdoors-type activities. So they don't care if my and the rest of the residents of MI ox/heritage gets gored due to the "legacy of crisis" because too bad for you but I've got mine or I don't care because I don't do outdoors stuff anyway! Imagine that!!!!


----------



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

Bambicidal Maniac said:


> I do understand what can happen if we let it, that's why I'm opposing a cap, but I'm not opposing sales if that's what it takes to get us out of the deep hole we're in.


We should dig out of the hole were in the same way we got in and that it be reducing spending especially on our entitlement programs not by selling off our public lands.



Bambicidal Maniac said:


> It's their job to change our laws when something is going wrong and we are failing to compete against the other states and globally. We've had a major decline in population. That's not a sign of a thriving society. We've lost political clout in DC. That makes it easier for the rest of the country to profit from our losses.


It is their duty based on the oath they take when they are sworn in to uphold the Constitution and uphold the Public Trust which is a duty under the Constitution. Unlike what some think the Constitution is not a living, breathing document to be ignored. I wont argue policy, all I expect from our politicians is to live up to their oath and obey the Constitution.. Obviously you didnt take the time to read the Public Trust Doctrine when you said it was their job to change our laws. Changing the Public Trust Doctrine cant be done by our state politicians. 



Bambicidal Maniac said:


> Cash and property tax revenue are not good? Digging out from past mistakes is not good?


How does this fit into the discussion? Again a silly argument never stated by me.



Bambicidal Maniac said:


> You seem to think you know exactly which properties will be targeted. How could you? I think the state will try to keep the tourism sector alive by carefully screening the sales for economic impact. Maybe that makes you a pessimist or me an optimist, but at least I'm not making claims I can't support


This is the disingenuous part. Some people when they cannot defend their position often make up a phony argument and then answer that phony premise as though their opponent stated it. That is exactly what your did Bam.. I never said I knew exactly which properties would be targeted. And to answer your last question what claim did I make I cant support?.




Bambicidal Maniac said:


> Some talk about our heritage but ignore our legacy. Our legacy is one of misuse of government. Voters of the past and the present are guilty of letting our government fail to think long term and to grow larger than we can support. The blame was placed on the "rich" and corporations and that only contributed to the insupportability. The bill's come due and now we have to figure out how to pay for it. Your kids and grandkids won't have jobs or bright futures in Michigan if we don't change our government from upside down to rightside up.


How does our legacy of misuse of government have anything to do with allowing the government to sell our heritage. I think you are confused and want to talk about your theories of how the world works as if you are some political pundit. This is doublespeak.



Bambicidal Maniac said:


> The state takes land from private landowners for tax defaults. That places the land in the tax exempt category and creates instant problems for nearby landowners and drives the value of their property down and costs the counties and the state even more in property tax revenue. That's one of the ways that the state land acreage grows. Do you want to see that continue to happen or do you want the government to stop taking land for tax defaults or do you want to allow the state to sell that land and stop digging us deeper and to fill in some of the holes we all let it dig? Selling land isn't the problem, although selling the wrong land might become a problem. Wouldn't it be better to focus on whether the land being sold is the right land or the wrong land? Or do we just have to accept that all land is the wrong land even if that means we continue to fail to compete?


I have no problem if the state takes property for non payment of taxes and then sells that property to recoup the taxes. Again misdirection.. 

For the rest of you guys, our outdoor heritage is at risk and when I say that I mean our Natural heritage our inheritance of fauna and flora, geology, landscape and land forms, and other natural resources. It is this heritage defined in our Constitution that Michigan agreed to when we became a state. It is written into the Northwest Ordinance that one of the requirements of statehood was that Michigan would hold in trust our natural heritage for its citizens free forever.

It appears many of our leaders dont understand their obligation under the Public Trust Document and one of the goals of our organization is to educate them of that obligation. Unlike what Bambicidal Maniac says they do not have the authority to change this Public Trust to its citizens.
The Public Trust is our legacy. 

If you do a little research the importance of the Public Trust will be clear. Six months ago it was new to me as I had never heard of it before and had difficulty believing what I read until I read a document sent to me by our DNR law enforcement division in response to an inquiry I made about public rights to Michigan waters. You can get it from the fishery division Ask for Law Enforcement Division Report No. 9.

From the report; The question is often asked: How did the State of Michigan acquire the duty to hold the soil beneath navigable waters in trust for public use? Virginia ceded the Northwest Territory to the Federal Government. Michigan, which was carved from this territory, took title to the submerged lands limited to the grant by Virginis and the Ordinance of 1787. This ordinance, being one of the laws of the Northwest Territory, and still of binding force in Michigan, provided that [t]he navigable waters leading into the Mississippi and the Saint Lawrence, and the carrying places between , shall be common highways, and forever free,... without any tax, impost, or duty therefor. Art. IV Northwest Ordinance 1787. Therefore, Michigan, upon admission to the Union, took title burdened with the aforesaid public trust.

Bottom line is our government can make rules that protect our resources but they cannot make rules if they only limit public recreation. The government under the public trust cannot sell away our rights, give them away or make rules that would limit public use.


----------



## Bambicidal Maniac (Feb 4, 2011)

Seaarkshooter said:


> BM, are you trying to say some, if any state land we currently or previously hunted or fished was the result of tax default by a private landowner? Can you "support" that and back that up? You seem to speak of this being a known number and fact. Please bring me to a higher level of knowledge here.


If you look at the first post in this thread, it says that tax-reverted land can be sold at auction for pennies on the dollar. That doesn't mean boat launches at lakes and rivers. It means land that reverted to the state because somebody failed to pay their taxes. The way that works now is

1) The state gets it appraised.
2) The state offers it to other governments and conservancies.
3) If it is still on the state's books after 2, the state offers the land at auction with the appraised price as the minimum bid price.
4) If it is still on the states's books after 3, it stays on the state's books until someone offers the minimum bid price.

Wanna see some?

http://www.dnr.state.mi.us/landsale...tus='P','A','Z'&RegionList=100&SearchType=Pub


----------



## Bambicidal Maniac (Feb 4, 2011)

Seldom said:


> That's exactly why we don't trust the politicians/government of today to give one rats-xxx about preserving our heritage because they didn't before. They knowingly and with forethought, threw the baby out with the bath water all in the name of "crisis" and they'll try and do it again if allowed!


So this is about mistrust, nothing concrete about losses of our heritage. The main thrust of this law seems to be a cap on growing aquisitions of property due to tax default, by allowing the state to ignore the appraisal requirement when selling tax-reverted properties. The fact that some properties don't sell indicates that the appraisal is unrealistically above market value. So the state carries this land on its books despite the fact that it was private property taken because somebody didn't pay his taxes.

The more I read the objections to this, the more convinced I become that they are very thinly veiled socialism. First we see class warfare, then scare tactics, and now complaints that the opposition is private landowners who are somehow robbing the proletariat of their heritage. Get a grip people. If the state acquires 80 acres from a tax reversion and can't sell it because the appraisal is too high for this economy, that's land that wasn't in our "heritage" until fairly recently and it got there because the voters messed up and caused the economy to tank by demanding more!more!more! and for free!.

The state needs to either clear these properties from their books or find some way to make them pay.


----------



## Bambicidal Maniac (Feb 4, 2011)

Splitshot said:


> We should dig out of the hole were in the same way we got in and that it be reducing spending especially on our entitlement programs not by selling off our public lands.


So you're saying the state can't sell tax reverted lands because they became public? 



> It is their duty based on the oath they take when they are sworn in to uphold the Constitution and uphold the Public Trust which is a duty under the Constitution.


Can you show me where in this law it would do either?



> Obviously you didnt take the time to read the Public Trust Doctrine when you said it was their job to change our laws. Changing the Public Trust Doctrine cant be done by our state politicians.


Are you certain that the Public Trust Doctrine Applies here?



> How does this fit into the discussion? Again a silly argument never stated by me.


You said, "if you think about it for a few minutes, there is nothing good that can come from selling our public resources."Cash and property tax revenues can come from selling surplus land held by the state. Wouldn't that be good?​


> Some people when they cannot defend their position often make up a phony argument and then answer that phony premise as though their opponent stated it. That is exactly what your did Bam.


I disagree. You said, "There wont be any public access to land and water if we allow them to do it." and "Once they start selling our public lands and water access points, many lakes will become private and the public will be crowded into less and less areas for hunting, fishing, trapping, snowmobiling, hiking, horse back riding, dirt biking, cross country skiing, bird watching or whatever." It seems to me that you're just scaremongering.
​


> And to answer your last question what claim did I make I cant support?.


How about this one. "Once they start selling our public lands and water access points, many lakes will become private and the public will be crowded into less and less areas for hunting, fishing, trapping, snowmobiling, hiking, horse back riding, dirt biking, cross country skiing, bird watching or whatever."



> How does our legacy of misuse of government have anything to do with allowing the government to sell our heritage.


Our misuse of government was a major factor in causing our economy to tank, causing a decrease in population and taxpayers which resulted in a decrease in income and property tax revenues and an increase in tax reversions which added land to the state's books and now the state has less tax revenue for both reasons. I agree that it has to cut spending, but if it cuts the wrong spending, that will likely cause further decreases in population and tax revenues.



> I have no problem if the state takes property for non payment of taxes and then sells that property to recoup the taxes. Again misdirection..


I think the misdirection is in assuming this bill is about selling off properties that the DNR hasn't labelled "surplus", and those are mainly the tax reverted properties you're now claiming you have no problem with selling.



> It appears many of our leaders dont understand their obligation under the Public Trust Document and one of the goals of our organization is to educate them of that obligation. Unlike what Bambicidal Maniac says they do not have the authority to change this Public Trust to its citizens.


I didn't say they have the authority to change the Public Trust Doctrine. I just don't think this law would do that. If it did, it would be shot down by the Supreme Court, but you have not established the relevance of the Public Trust Doctrine to either a cap on land ownership by the state or to sales of lands under this bill, so all this talk of heritage and the PDT just seems like scaremongering.


----------



## Bambicidal Maniac (Feb 4, 2011)

Here's the law with the proposed changes in bold

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billengrossed/Senate/htm/2011-SEBS-0248.htm

I see no threat to the Public Trust Doctrine or to our "heritage". I think now that maybe the cap is a good idea because we clearly need to place limits on the tendency of people to bankrupt the state by pretending their ox has been gored because the land they've been hunting on because some guy failed to pay taxes on land he inherited from his grandfather might suddenly spout no trespassing signs.


----------



## 9 (Jan 17, 2000)

Bambicidal Maniac said:


> So this is about mistrust, nothing concrete about losses of our heritage. The main thrust of this law seems to be a cap on growing aquisitions of property due to tax default, by allowing the state to ignore the appraisal requirement when selling tax-reverted properties. The fact that some properties don't sell indicates that the appraisal is unrealistically above market value. So the state carries this land on its books despite the fact that it was private property taken because somebody didn't pay his taxes.
> 
> *The more I read the objections to this, the more convinced I become that they are very thinly veiled socialism. First we see class warfare, then scare tactics, and now complaints that the opposition is private landowners who are somehow robbing the proletariat of their heritage. Get a grip people.* If the state acquires 80 acres from a tax reversion and can't sell it because the appraisal is too high for this economy, that's land that wasn't in our "heritage" until fairly recently and it got there because the voters messed up and caused the economy to tank by demanding more!more!more! and for free!.
> 
> The state needs to either clear these properties from their books or find some way to make them pay.


Socialism!! :SHOCKED::lol::lol: Class warfare! Scare tactics! Landowners robbing!:lol::lol: Apparently either the "simply foolish" or "lack of experience" button got pushed! *Maybe both*!:lol:


----------



## Bambicidal Maniac (Feb 4, 2011)

Seldom said:


> Socialism!! Class warfare! Scare tactics! Landowners robbing! Apparently either the "simply foolish" or "lack of experience" button got pushed! *Maybe both*!


I'm thinking maybe it was the Kneejerk Reaction, Useful Idiot or Gullible Bedwetter button that got pushed. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

IF, and thats hopefully a small if, the state is talking about selling ONLY tax deliquent properties, I probably wouldn't have a problem with it, but if they are talking about our state forest land, or anything like that, then I would be oppossed to that.


----------



## Bambicidal Maniac (Feb 4, 2011)

toto said:


> IF, and thats hopefully a small if, the state is talking about selling ONLY tax deliquent properties, I probably wouldn't have a problem with it, but if they are talking about our state forest land, or anything like that, then I would be oppossed to that.


I posted a link to the law and I didn't see anything in it about selling other lands for anything less than appraised (fair market) value and nothing about selling lands covered by the Public Trust Doctrine. I don't know whether the current holdings exceed the cap, but if they do, I imagine the DNR will first sell the tax-reverted land.

Here are the additions:

Before acquiring surface rights to land, the department shall estimate payments in lieu of taxes on the land, and the change of property tax revenue likely to be experienced by local units of government as a result of the acquisition and shall post this information on its website for at least 21 days.

(4) The department shall not acquire surface rights to land if the department owns, or as a result of the acquisition will own, the surface rights to more than 4,650,000 acres of land.

(5) For the purposes of subsection (4), the number of acres of land in which the department owns surface rights does not include any of the following:

(a) Land in which the department has a conservation easement.

(b) Land platted under the land division act, 1967 PA 288, MCL 560.101 to 560.293, or a predecessor act before the effective date of the amendatory act that added this subsection if acquired by the department before the effective date of the amendatory act that added this subsection.

(c) Any of the following if acquired on or after the effective date of the amendatory act that added this subsection:

(_i_) Land with an area of not more than 80 acres, or a right-of-way, for accessing other land owned by the department.

(_ii_) A trail. The land excluded under this subparagraph is limited as follows:

(A) If the traveled portion of the trail is located within an abandoned railroad right-of-way, the land excluded is limited to the abandoned railroad right-of-way.

(B) If the traveled portion of the trail is located in a utility easement, the land excluded is limited to the utility easement.

(C) If sub-subparagraphs (A) and (B) do not apply, the land excluded is limited to the traveled portion of the trail and contiguous land. The area of the contiguous land shall not exceed the product of 100 feet multiplied by the length of the trail infeet.

(_iii_) Land that, on the effective date of the amendatory act that added this subsection, was commercial forestland as defined in section 51101.

(_iv_) Land acquired by the department by gift. 
(_v_) Land acquired by the department through litigation.

(6) The department shall maintain a record of land as described in subsection (5). The record shall include the location, acreage, date of acquisition, and use of the land.

(7) The department shall post and maintain on its website all of the following information:

(a) The number of acres of land, including land as described in subsection (5), in which the department owns surface rights, in total, and by program.

(b) The number of acres of land, excluding land as described in subsection (5), in which the department owns surface rights, in total, and by program.

Sec. 2132. (1) The department may sell surplus land at a price of not less than its fair market value as determined by an appraisal <<OR OTHER METHOD OF VALUATION>>. However, if the department 
offers tax reverted land for sale and the land is not sold within 9 months, the department shall offer the land for sale at a public auction and sell the property to the qualified bidder making the highest bid that represents a reasonable price for the property as determined by the department, notwithstanding the fair market value of the property.

I really don't see what all the fuss is about.


----------



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

Beaverhunter2 said:


> We received the following letter on SB248 from our friends- the Michigan Bow Hunters Association.
> 
> SB 248 primary sponsor Tom Casperson (R) Property; land sales; purchase of state land using state funds; modify criteria. Amends sec. 503 of 1994 PA 451 (MCL 324.503).
> 
> MBH *(Ed. Note: and MTPCA)* members are encouraged to contact their House Representative and request they vote NO on Senate Bill 248 introduced to limit the amount of land the MDNR may own for public recreation.


BM, Your reading comprehensive skills must be better than mine. The above quote is from the first post. As I said I have no problem selling lands acquired by non payment of taxes but that is not what Beaverhunter stated.

Maybe that is what you thought it said, but why would any sportsman want to limit the amount of land the MDNR may own for public recreation? I can not think of one good reason. He also said; 



Beaverhunter2 said:


> IMPORTANT:
> As written, this Senate Bill would also force the sale of over 250,000 acres of land the MDNR has.
> 
> Once the proposed SB 248 cap is reached, the State would be required to sell lands that exceed the cap. If a willing buyer does not come forward, the bill requires tax-reverted lands to be auctioned off to the highest bidder with no reserve price  in other words land could sell for pennies on the dollar.
> ...


We need more land, access to public lands we already own and access to more of our lakes, rivers and streams, not less. While I have no problem with someone wanting to build a golf course, I dont want him or her to use public lands that we own. We meaning the citizens of the state or Michigan. I know the state is doing it, but the Public Trust Doctrine which is written in stone says they can not do it. Like anything, if no one says anything they will do what they please and then find some way to justify it later.

Another consideration is what do we do with Michigans share of Pittman-Robertson funds if we cant purchase more land? If you didnt know, The Pittman-Robertson Act created a 10% excise tax on sporting arms and ammunition including archery equipment. This fund generates 150 million dollars a year to pay for habitat projects including land acquisition.

I just dont understand what these politicians could be thinking by wanting to limit our access to the outdoors.



Bambicidal Maniac said:


> So you're saying the state can't sell tax reverted lands because they became public?
> 
> Can you show me where in this law it would do either?
> 
> ...


----------



## Seaarkshooter (Nov 5, 2009)

> I think now that maybe the cap is a good idea because we clearly need to place limits on the tendency of people to bankrupt the state by pretending their ox has been gored because the land they've been hunting on because some guy failed to pay taxes on land he inherited from his grandfather might suddenly spout no trespassing signs.


It only took what? 24 hours or less to see you jump the fence on the issue and revert back to what I have learned from reading your past posts as ridiculing in the face of strong opposition, Bam?


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

As you know split, I agree with you on this. The PTD, which as you know what I think of it, is a powerful doctrine. This doctrine was directly responsible for the Northwest Ordinance, which is now known as one of the 4 organic laws of the U.S. 

Having said all that, again, I wouldn't have a problem IF its only deliquent tax properties. Should there be cap on how much the state owns? Probably. The problem is, if the state owns so much land, and then the feds owns so much land, and then you have people like the land conservation groups, you then have a tax problem for the rest of the property owners in a given county.

For example, lets look at Benzie County. If you look at a plat book, you will find that between these three groups, they own approximately 1/2 the property in Benzie County. Add to that, forest management tax reductions on other properties, you now create a real problem. All these groups pay only what is known as Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) that is a vastly reduced amount, as compared to what the property would garner tax wise, on a normal basis. Benzie is lucky in a way, they have quite a bit of the rest of the property that has some high values, therefore helping to offset the loss of tax revenue from the above groups. But, it isn't inconceivable that a certain county could have just the reverse problem in that if the normal homeowner properties aren't valued high enough to offset the PILT's, then guess what happens, tax rates go up and up.


----------



## Bambicidal Maniac (Feb 4, 2011)

Splitshot said:


> The above quote is from the first post. As I said I have no problem selling lands acquired by non payment of taxes but that is not what Beaverhunter stated.


The first post specifically mentioned the sale of tax-reverted land, but perhaps you should read the actual amended law. I posted a link to it and I posted excerpts that are the proposed changes to it, but here's the link again

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billengrossed/Senate/htm/2011-SEBS-0248.htm



> Maybe that is what you thought it said, but why would any sportsman want to limit the amount of land the MDNR may own for public recreation? I can not think of one good reason.


To keep the MDNR from owning so much land that it causes economic problems for the state?



> We need more land, access to public lands we already own and access to more of our lakes, rivers and streams, not less.


Even if it contributes to the bankruptcy of the state?



> While I have no problem with someone wanting to build a golf course, I dont want him or her to use public lands that we own.


Did you find something about a golf course in SB 248? I sure didn't.



> We meaning the citizens of the state or Michigan. I know the state is doing it, but the Public Trust Doctrine which is written in stone says they can not do it. Like anything, if no one says anything they will do what they please and then find some way to justify it later.


 You still have not established a connection between the PDT and the proposed changes to the law.



> Another consideration is what do we do with Michigans share of Pittman-Robertson funds if we cant purchase more land?


We could use them for improvements to the land we already have.



> I just dont understand what these politicians could be thinking by wanting to limit our access to the outdoors.


They're probably thinking that if they don't put a limit on state ownership, tax reversions could increase until the state owns 100% of the land and nobody lives or pays taxes here.

I asked: "Can you show me where in this law it would do either?" and got no intelligible answer.



> The fact is you keep trying to argue something different than was stated and that is dishonest. Start your own post about your issues.


Maybe I'm just misunderstanding you or you're just misunderstanding me, but I thought this thread was about whether SB 248 is good for the state or bad for the state. Maybe if you read it we'll get on the same page.

I asked: "Are you certain that the Public Trust Doctrine Applies here?" and got no intelligible answer.



> I have to assume you havent read the Public Trust Doctrine or you wouldnt have asked those questions. I would take the trouble to explain it again but all I will get back from you is dishonest rhetoric.


I've read it. I'm quite familiar with it because of the navigable waters issue. You have not tied it to SB 248. Quote from SB 248 something that would violate the PDT.



> You make this statement but yet you are ready to trust them to decide what is surplus. In this area they have already shown they cant be trusted. The state traded a a moderate section of land on the Little Manistee for the best section of land on the river over 30 years ago. And based on a United States Supreme Court decision the court found that the state did not have the authority to sell public land under the Public Trust Document. Go to the links I provided earlier and you will easily find it.


Read the bill. Connect the proposed changes to the PDT in a way that was not already incorporated in the law or stop assuming the PDT is relevant to the changes.



> I made this statement; We should dig out of the hole were in the same way we got in and that it be reducing spending especially on our entitlement programs not by selling off our public lands.
> and this was your reply.
> 
> "So you're saying the state can't sell tax reverted lands because they became public?"
> ...


It appears to me that you said they could sell public land but they shouldn't. I've seen nothing in the bill that says they could or would sell land that they couldn't sell before the proposed changes to the bill. Have you?



> If you think the PTD doesnt apply to selling public lands managed by the DNR then make your argument there instead of spinning it with facts not stated.


Read the bill. Connect the proposed changes to the PDT in a way that was not already incorporated in the law or stop assuming the PDT is relevant to the changes.


----------



## Bambicidal Maniac (Feb 4, 2011)

Seaarkshooter said:


> It only took what? 24 hours or less to see you jump the fence on the issue and revert back to what I have learned from reading your past posts as ridiculing in the face of strong opposition, Bam?


I don't know what you think you've seen in the past, but I noticed a certain pattern that is common in socialist arguments being applied to this issue. They demonize the wealthy and corporations. That happened at the beginning of this thread. Then they scaremonger and make other emotional appeals, like about how we're harming the children if we don't provide public goodies. They imagine things into the proposed changes to laws and then fail to support what they imagine and expect you to read something else and then believe their concerns are more important than fiscal sanity. Then they demonize the private sector some more.

The bill is right there for people to read.


----------



## Bambicidal Maniac (Feb 4, 2011)

For the sake of the discussion, the proposed cap is 7.5% of the land area of the state. Add that to the federal land and the conservancy lands and that seems like a lot to me. I can't find anything on how much the state currently holds, but I find nothing supporting this claim that 250,000 acres would have to be sold to comply with this cap.


----------



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

Bambicidal Maniac said:


> Read the bill. Connect the proposed changes to the PDT in a way that was not already incorporated in the law or stop assuming the PDT is relevant to the changes.


I did read the law BM and it is clear you will continue to be disingenuous and not directly answer the questions but just turn them into other non relevant questions. It wont change so Ill just list the first part of the bill you say I havent read.

Sec. 503. (1) The department shall protect and conserve the 
1.	natural resources of this state; provide and develop facilities for 
outdoor recreation; prevent the destruction of timber and other 
forest growth by fire or otherwise; promote the reforesting of 
forest lands belonging to the state; prevent and guard against the 
pollution of lakes and streams within the state and enforce all 
laws provided for that purpose with all authority granted by law; 
and foster and encourage the protecting and propagation of game and 
fish. 

(2) The department has the power and jurisdiction over the 
management, control, and disposition of all land under the public 
domain, except for those lands under the public domain that are 
managed by other state agencies to carry out their assigned duties 
and responsibilities. On behalf of the people of the this state, 
the department may accept gifts and grants of land and other 
property and may buy, sell, exchange, or condemn land and other 
property, for any of the purposes contemplated by of this part. 
Before acquiring surface rights to land, the department shall 
estimate payments in lieu of taxes on the land, and the change of 
property tax revenue likely to be experienced by local units of 
government as a result of the acquisition and shall post this 
information on 

The first part of this bill restates the states obligations. In # (2) it states that the department has the power and jurisdiction over the management, control and disposition of all land under the public domain...........

The problem is the state has jurisdiction over management and control but not disposition of all lands because the state is obligated to hold those lands and waters in trust for its citizens free forever. As stated in the Public Trust Doctrine and the Michigan State Constitution.

These statements either in or out of context are ones I would not expect from any sportsman.

To keep the MDNR from owning so much land that it causes economic problems for the state?

Even if it contributes to the bankruptcy of the state?

The fact that the MDNR owns so much land had nothing to do with the economic condition of the state in that we did not get so far in debt because the state was buying land for sportsmen and women but because they wasted money on entitlement programs so I am totally against selling our natural heritage to get us out of this predicament. I believe once we allow them to start selling these lands, it will continue until our state ends up like New Jersey. 

There are many other things we can do to stay solvent.

As to your last quote about the Public Trust you said I asked: "Are you certain that the Public Trust Doctrine Applies here?" and got no intelligible answer.

I am certain and my view agrees with the PTD along with the many U.S. Supreme Court decisions over the years upholding my opinion of the PTD.. In fact my position is based on those decisions.

You can keep playing word games calling people bed wetters or whatever, but we are used to trolls on this web-site and I have provided the information to the people I wanted to so I see no reason to continue to continue playing your little games.


----------



## Bambicidal Maniac (Feb 4, 2011)

Splitshot said:


> The problem is the state has jurisdiction over management and control but not disposition of all lands because the state is obligated to hold those lands and waters in trust for its citizens free forever. As stated in the Public Trust Doctrine and the Michigan State Constitution.


Neither document states that all lands that come into the possession of the state must remain in the public domain in trust for the citizens free forever. Agreed?

Neither the PTD nor the Constitution requires unlimited growth of the quantity of public land. Agreed?

If you can agree on those, then the imposition of a cap on the growth of public ownership of land is not inconsistent with the PTD or the Constitution. Agreed?

The relevant issue then becomes whether the imposition of this 7.5% cap would require the state to sell land that is covered by the PDT, but that is an issue of where the cap is set and which lands must be sold meet it. It does not prevent the imposition of a cap. Agreed?

You have not shown that the imposition of 7.5% cap would require the sale of any lands covered by the PTD. Agreed?



> These statements either in or out of context are ones I would not expect from any sportsman.
> 
> To keep the MDNR from owning so much land that it causes economic problems for the state?
> 
> Even if it contributes to the bankruptcy of the state?


Contrary to your apparent belief, not all sporstmen are socialists. Unlimited growth of public ownership of land for the sake of supplying benefits to a subset of the population is consistent with socialism. Agreed?



> The fact that the MDNR owns so much land had nothing to do with the economic condition of the state in that we did not get so far in debt because the state was buying land for sportsmen and women but because they wasted money on entitlement programs so I am totally against selling our natural heritage to get us out of this predicament. I believe once we allow them to start selling these lands, it will continue until our state ends up like New Jersey.


You have not yet established that the 7.5 cap would require the sale of any lands covered by the PTD. Agreed?

The movement of additional lands from private ownership to the public domain will have both positive and negative effects on the economic competitiveness of the state. Agreed?

I was opposed to a cap until I saw that the lack of a cap could be used by socialists to cause every parcel that enters the public domain to remain in the public domain regardless of the economic impact on the competitiveness of the state. Unless sportsmen shoulder the responsibility of showing that each acquisition will enhance the competitiveness of the state, I see no reason to allow more growth. The PTD does not require it and nothing about these changes to the bill has been shown to violate the PTD or the Constitution. These changes do not authorize the sale of lands that were not previously subject to sale in the law authorizing the DNR. If you can come up with a convincing case that the cap should be higher than 7.5% I'll contact my rep and recommend that. In the meantime, I'm not buying that more lands must be taken from the tax rolls and made available to sportsmen at public expense.


----------



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

Like I said it is impossible to have a conversation with you because you keep changing the debate so you can prove some point even you don't know what it is. At this point, I don't even want you to back up what you say because I just don't care. Agreed!

For further clarification, read Ranger Ray's signiture.


----------



## Beaverhunter2 (Jan 22, 2005)

Just a couple points and then I'm going to drop back out of this debate. 

Most tax reverted land becomes the property of the County- not the State. Property taxes are paid to the County. The State does have the opportunity to buy Tax Sale Land just like you and I do.

The major point that makes me oppose the cap is that most of the land the DNR is purchasing is funded by the Natural Resources Trust Fund. This Fund gets its money from the proceeds of mineral, gas, and oil sales on State land. It is restricted money that can only be used for this purpose. If a cap is imposed, there will be no need for the Fund. So what will happen to it? I fear it will go to fund some politician's favorite boondoggle just like the Feds wasted the Social Security surplus. Buying land will not bankrupt the State if they use the NRT Fund for its intended purpose.

BM, I find it interesting that you seem to think that the State can't sell land. If that's the case, then every time I go to an NRC meeting they are discussing breaking the law. It seems that they always have land sales (and purchases) on the Agenda.

One last thing. If you think I'm a Socialist because I support the idea of having the State buy land for the use of ALL citizens (not a "subset"), then you don't know me very well!! :lol: :lol: :lol: Michigan's public lands are a valuable asset for the State and for it's citizens; and they also drive significant portions of our economy- timber, oil, gas, tourism, etc.

Vote your hearts and your minds, Folks! Mine tell me to oppose limiting the amount of land the citizens of Michigan can own.

John


----------



## Forest Meister (Mar 7, 2010)

Bambicidal Maniac said:


> It isn't clear that any land would have to be sold with the cap set at 7.5%. It seems more like that 250,000 acres thing was scaremongering. But selling land isn't a one-time deal. It starts bringing in property tax revenue for the county and state. It also might be bought by hunters who will put in food plots or other improvements to the property and that means commerce and that's what the state needs. Or it might be logged off or have a house built on it or be subdivided or any of a number of other things that mean commerce. Either way it's a tradeoff. We can continue to be anti-business and pay the price of that or we can try becoming business friendly.


Mind boggling amount of facts, opinions, speculation, projections and half facts being offered by a host of folks all of which seem to have put much thought into what they put to print. IMO this is great because it seems to be stimulating even more thought on everyone's part. I've even started to compose a couple responses over the last few days but let it go because of the length they were getting.

One think I would like to add at this point and I will try to keep it as brief as possible, is based on what I know best, timber, the timber industry, and the management of timber land. My comment centers on the part of the quote above that refers to commerce. 

Probable most of us in Michigan can agree that we would like to see our children find and keep jobs close to home so we need in-state businesses to thrive. Businesses that expand and can put people to work, businesses that keep the people who already have jobs working full time. Right now the timber industry, which is heavily dependent on public land for raw material, is one of those thriving, expanding businesses. This industry is already providing jobs from not only logging but also from pulp & paper, sawmills, dry kilns, veneer mills, firewood, furniture, OSB, etc. not to mention the up and coming biofuels sector. The jobs provided by timber and its direct spin-off industries provide full time jobs that pay real wages and most provide "benefits". 

Just last week I became aware that the EPA gave approval to two new wood using plants, indicating that their operation would not harm the environment. Ground breaking, so to speak, should happen relatively soon. I am very familiar with one of these proposed plants and can assure you that the location was heavily based on the long term availability of timber from _public_ lands. 

Why would an industry key in on public land and not private land? It is a dead certain fact that a 2x4, a piece of paper or a gallon of ethanol can be made just as easily from a tree that grew on private land as a tree that grew on public land. It is also a fact that on a per acre basis non-industrial private landowners are less likely to harvest timber on their property even though their land it is generally more productive than state land (the best timber lands were less likely to tax revert). When private land owners do harvest history has shown they are also less likely to manage sustainably, although I am happy to say that seems to be changing, be it ever so slowly.

There certainly are tradeoffs and options concerning the liquidation of public lands. Land could be sold and put to private use but is jeopardizing the foundation of a very important existing industry worth the risk when that industry already provides thousands and thousands of permanent jobs all across the state? Many of these jobs are in the southern 1/3 of the state believe it or not, but IMO the most crucial jobs are in the northern 2/3 where the timber industry is an important pillar, if not the major pillar, in many local economies. This is also the area of the state where the lion's share of the state land is located. I therefore argue that keeping what we already have and continuing to management it wisely is pro-business, not anti-business.

Harvesting and regenerating *our *timber to provide jobs and renew wildlife habitat is one of the few sectors of our economy where "we can have our cake and eat it too." Our forefathers were indeed wise to make provision for both jobs and millions and millions of acres where we can roam without restriction. Does the fact that there are no other states east of the Mississippi that have what we have mean we should aim for the mediocrity they possess? Or should we strive to distance ourselves even further from them promoting and welcoming more job creating industry with our vast renewable resources? I argue that we should be keeping what we already have and adding to it when the right deal comes along is pro-business, not anti-business.

One quick thought about tax revenue. Yes, in general private lands pay more in taxes than the state pays on tax reverted lands but local government also does not have the same responsibilities for wild land as they do for residential areas. When was the last time a deer called 911 or a tree called an ambulance? 

Sorry I wasn't brief. FM


----------



## Bambicidal Maniac (Feb 4, 2011)

Forest Meister said:


> I therefore argue that keeping what we already have and continuing to manage it wisely is pro-business, not anti-business.


Nobody has yet shown that any of what we already have is at risk.



> Does the fact that there are no other states east of the Mississippi that have what we have mean we should aim for the mediocrity they possess?


Of course not. We should aim for competitiveness, not mediocrity.



> Or should we strive to distance ourselves even further from them promoting and welcoming more job creating industry with our vast renewable resources?


As long as our focus is on competitiveness instead of an unlimited unearned entitlement, it should be fairly easy to increase the cap. Why would voters not support owning more land if it's a clear economic win? Nobody has yet shown that the proposed cap would in any way limit our forest fiber harvesting potential.

[/COLOR]


> I argue that we should be keeping what we already have and adding to it when the right deal comes along is pro-business, not anti-business.





(4) The department shall not acquire surface rights to land if the department owns, or as a result of the acquisition will own,the surface rights to more than 4,650,000 acres of land.

(5) For the purposes of subsection (4), the number of acres of land in which the department owns surface rights does not include any of the following:

(c) Any of the following if acquired on or after the effective date of the amendatory act that added this subsection: 
(_iii_) Land that, on the effective date of the amendatory act that added this subsection, was commercial forestland as defined in section 51101. 

It would appear this would allow us to buy commercial forestland and exclude it from the capped lands. I'm not sure how it would be determined that a woodland parcel did not fall under this exclusion from the cap. Other lands that would cause the cap to be exceeded and that the state might acquire and that might be put into timber production, could justify moving the cap if they are in fact economically justified. They could also replace land within the cap that is less valuable to the state as forestland than for some other private use proposed for it. They could also be bought at auction by timber companies, harvested, resold to hunters wise enough to know that timber harvests are good for increasing animal populations and thus become private timberlands, likely to be managed for both timber and wildlife diversity instead of the monocultures we see on other forestlands. In short, I'm just not inclined to think a cap is automatically anti-business, just because some private forestland owners don't maximize their timber harvest potential. The message a cap on unearned entitlements sends to investors is definitely pro-business.



> One quick thought about tax revenue. Yes, in general private lands pay more in taxes than the state pays on tax reverted lands but local government also does not have the same responsibilities for wild land as they do for residential areas. When was the last time a deer called 911 or a tree called an ambulance?


 
Ambulances are called by hunters and other users of wild land, so I don't see a valid point here, but I will say that you have still not addressed the issue of whether the cap can move down from 100% to something you feel you can economically justify. I'm glad that you brought a forest industry perspective to the discussion though.


----------



## Bambicidal Maniac (Feb 4, 2011)

I looked for an analysis of the bill as presented to the state senators, hoping to find much more economic analysis of the pros and cons than they apparently felt it deserved. Here's the analysis:

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billanalysis/Senate/htm/2011-SFA-0248-A.htm

Apparently we're five years away from hitting the cap at the rate we've been approaching it over the past 10 years. That should slow if the economy improves and fewer tax reversions result.

Here's an excerpt:

 *Supporting Argument *Under current circumstances, it is unclear whether the people of Michigan are receiving the greatest possible benefit from the land owned by the Department of Natural Resources. The DNR might not be able to oversee its land properly, especially while operating under significant budget cuts. For example, the Department recently proposed the closure of a number of State forest campgrounds that the DNR thought it could not afford to maintain (although the campgrounds will remain open for the present). It would not be prudent for the DNR to acquire more land when resources to manage existing parcels are limited and some land is underused or unused.

In addition, the DNR may be limiting access to some of its land in the name of stewardship to the detriment of outdoor enthusiasts and the timber industry. For instance, the Department is involved in several initiatives to preserve the State's biodiversity and protect threatened or endangered species. Some people have complained that human use is being constrained in areas where this conservation work is occurring, through either restrictions on activity or bans on entry. In some cases, the regulation is excessive and diminishes the utility of the land to the residents of Michigan. The DNR should not continue to acquire property if it does not plan to use the parcels to enhance opportunities for the industries and individuals who play an important role in the State's economy. Under these conditions, the people of the State would benefit more if the land were under private ownership.

State ownership of land also has ramifications for the local units of government in which it is located. The local units lose the property taxes that they would otherwise collect if that land were available for development. To offset the revenue loss, State statute requires the DNR to make payments in lieu of taxes (PILT) to local governments. These payments, however, amount to much less than a private landowner would pay in property taxes. In addition, the State has not been able to make full PILT over the last several years due to budget shortfalls, and instead has made prorated payments. These circumstances have exacerbated local units' existing financial difficulties, especially where the majority of land is owned by the State.

In a related matter, the DNR remains in possession of a number of parcels that it received through the tax reversion process. Because this land was not acquired strategically, it may not enhance the Department's conservation or recreation efforts, although it could be valuable to private interests for other purposes. The Department could look to this surplus first in designating land to sell in order to comply with the proposed cap.

While the DNR needs flexibility to acquire land identified as valuable to its mission, the concerns regarding its budget and management practices, as well as the impact of State-owned land on local governments, demonstrate that the Department's authority should not be completely unrestrained. The proposed limit of 4.6 million acres would be a reasonable cap that would still allow the DNR to make decisions regarding the purchase and sale of its property and give Michiganders adequate recreational opportunities.

 *Opposing Argument *While concerns about the DNR's current land management practices and local fiscal stability may be well-founded, the solution is more complex than simply capping the number of acres the DNR may own or control. A more effective response would be the adoption of a comprehensive land management strategy that takes regional needs into account. The strategy should include clear criteria to guide the DNR in purchasing land that furthers its mission and selling land that is underused or that does not contribute to the Department's conservation and recreation goals. Such a strategy would enable the Department to deploy its resources more effectively, maximize the public benefit of the land, and provide a measure of accountability. The limit proposed by the bill could hinder the DNR's ability to take advantage of time-sensitive opportunities to acquire high-value land and create recreational opportunities where they are most needed. Ultimately, the bill could have negative consequences for the State's outdoor enthusiasts.

Establishing a five-year average cap would be better than setting a hard cap. If the Department were nearing a total of 4.6 million acres, a rolling average limit would allow for the acquisition of valuable land if the opportunity arose while giving the Department time to identify other parcels to be sold. 

In addition, it is questionable whether including certain land in the total would be appropriate. In some cases, the DNR leases private land; whether that land should be counted against the cap is uncertain. In the case of Camp Grayling, a National Guard training facility, the DNR owns the land but does not control its use. The practical implications of the bill's language referring to land the Department "owns or controls" should be examined further.

The bill would exclude trails from the 4.6 million-acre limit only if they met specific criteria. These conditions potentially would prevent the DNR from acquiring land that could increase the connectivity of the trail system. The bill should allow for the acquisition of all trails, regardless of the amount of land the Department owned. Also, the exclusion of conservation easements should apply to easements the Department currently owns, as well as those gained in the future. Under the bill, existing easements would count against the cap.

The bill also should exclude from the cap land considered valuable because of special natural resource features. The DNR should not be prevented from obtaining land that furthers its stewardship mission, which is one of the Department's principal functions, simply because the limit was reached.

In addition to requiring the DNR to evaluate the potential cost of land acquisition to the Department and the applicable local unit of government, the bill should require the DNR to evaluate the potential benefits. Often, State-owned land promotes tourism and economic activity for surrounding communities. In some local units, the improved quality of life and revenue generated from the public recreational opportunities available on State-owned land might outweigh the loss of property tax revenue. Reportedly, some communities have adopted resolutions to waive PILT for nearby State parks and recreation areas. Stakeholders should have a full understanding of the potential impact--the positive as well as the negative--of a proposed land purchase by the DNR. It also might make sense to exclude a DNR acquisition from the cap if the affected local unit expressed support for it.

With regard to the requirement that unsold tax reverted land be sold at a public auction, the time frame should be extended. Six months might not be enough time for a prospective purchaser to arrange financing and close on the sale. Furthermore, without a minimum bid requirement, the land could 
be sold for pennies on the dollar. The bill should require tax reverted land to be sold at auction after 18 months, rather than six, and also should include a right of first refusal for the local unit of government in which a parcel was located.

*Response: *Based on the DNR's rate of acquisition over the last 10 years, it would be another five years before the proposed limit was reached--ample time for the Department to evaluate its portfolio and sell land if needed. For the DNR's purposes, 4.6 million acres would be sufficient; carving out additional exclusions would be unwarranted. In addition, requiring tax reverted land to remain on the market for 18 months before it could be auctioned would serve only to prolong the sale process unnecessarily. The bill aims to ensure that the DNR could manage its land properly and maintain public access; additional exceptions to the cap and a protracted divestment process for tax reverted land would diminish the bill's effectiveness. 

The bill was amended to 4.65 million acres and the period for the tax reverted land sale was changed to 9 months.


----------



## Forest Meister (Mar 7, 2010)

Bambicidal Maniac said:


> I looked for an analysis of the bill as presented to the state senators, hoping to find much more economic analysis of the pros and cons than they apparently felt it deserved. Here's the analysis:
> 
> http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2011-2012/billanalysis/Senate/htm/2011-SFA-0248-A.htm
> 
> ...


 
Good research, excellent in fact. I readily admit not reading the bills in their entirety (mostly just skimmed) but unless I am missing something it is difficult to understand how tax reversions will significantly affect state land acquisition. Unless of course, the proposed action by the legislature will alter the exsisting tax reversion statute.

·When land went delinquent on taxes back in the day the State of Michigan was obligated by law to take them over. Many times State of Michigan tried to resell the land but unless there was something otherwise desirable, the lands best suited to agriculture were the ones that most often found willing purchasers. (How much tax reverted land is in the SLP, except for the Allegan State Game Area?) Few seemed to want the swamps, sand barrens, etc. so the state was stuck with them.

·Several years ago the legislature changed how tax reversion was treated. Today, any lands that go delinquent revert to the county in which they are located BUT, the State of Michigan is given first dibs on purchasing the land at fair market value before the county offers it for sale to the public. Very little land goes delinquent today except for small odd parcels and residential lots. Land like that is a liability to the public, not an asset. It is very rare when a tax delinquent 10 acre or larger parcel adjacent to or within state forest boundaries reaches the point where it can be offered to the state for purchase. 

·In years gone by, before the change in the law, the DNR was forced to take over literally thousands of city lots all across the state and they are always trying to sell them. Most of these lots are either in the scary parts of town or in an area that was platted but the streets were never put in. In the latter areas the DNR can and sometimes does, own entire subdivisions. If they could just find a willing buyer for all those properties .............


----------



## Bambicidal Maniac (Feb 4, 2011)

Forest Meister said:


> unless I am missing something it is difficult to understand how tax reversions will significantly affect state land acquisition. Unless of course, the proposed action by the legislature will alter the exsisting tax reversion statute.
> 
> ...
> 
> Several years ago the legislature changed how tax reversion was treated. Today, any lands that go delinquent revert to the county in which they are located BUT, the State of Michigan is given first dibs on purchasing the land at fair market value before the county offers it for sale to the public.​


​
That is in direct conflict with something another person said and I really don't know which of you is correct, but provisions for selling tax reverted land were put into the bill and my understanding is that the state gets the land first but must offer it to other governments first.



> Very little land goes delinquent today except for small odd parcels and residential lots. Land like that is a liability to the public, not an asset. It is very rare when a tax delinquent 10 acre or larger parcel adjacent to or within state forest boundaries reaches the point where it can be offered to the state for purchase.


The state surplus land catalog that I linked to earlier has a fair number of parcels greater than 10 acres in the NLP. I can't address their proximity to state forest boundaries, but they're owned by the DNR and I've been told they are tax-reverted by one of the state contacts on one of the parcels. It may be that with a weakening economy tax reversions are on the increase. That certainly would be a concern if an economic death spiral is not averted before the PoNR. Here's the link again.

http://www.dnr.state.mi.us/landsale...tus='P','A','Z'&RegionList=100&SearchType=Pub

I suspect the state has no trouble selling large parcels that are not landlocked, but does not want to incur the expense of buying or forcing an easement onto properties that are. Those are some of the dogs of the surplus land catalog.



> In years gone by, before the change in the law, the DNR was forced to take over literally thousands of city lots all across the state and they are always trying to sell them. Most of these lots are either in the scary parts of town or in an area that was platted but the streets were never put in. In the latter areas the DNR can and sometimes does, own entire subdivisions. If they could just find a willing buyer for all those properties .............


I'm guessing that if there was such a change in the law, it may have had an acreage limit or maybe it excluded lots in incorporated areas (within city limits) from DNR inventories. Could you provide a link to the law?


----------



## JimP (Feb 8, 2002)

Bambicidal Maniac said:


> [/COLOR][/LEFT]
> 
> That is in direct conflict with something another person said and I really don't know which of you is correct, but provisions for selling tax reverted land were put into the bill and my understanding is that the state gets the land first but must offer it to other governments first.
> 
> ...


*FYI: Counties* are auctioning their tax reverted properties now.
That is different than the State surplus inventory sale.

https://www.tax-sale.info/
(ignore the certificate warning, the site has been up for more than five years)

The new law eliminated the practice of bidders purchasing the tax certificates from County Clerks and holding them at 8%-10% interest rates awaiting the property owner to redeem. After a lot of hoops, repurchasing and legal notifications over 3 years or so, if they didn't redeem, the bidder got the property.
The County Clerks were also auctioning off the properties at Sheriff's sales independently or through the auspices of the DNR who had 1st pick.
The new law allowed them to consolidate their sale's with a common service company who now manages the sales for the County clerks...

If you're interested:
You really need to inspect and check the property carefully.
Some are landlocked, hazardous/industrial or just plain waste dumps.
Some are odd shaped: 10' x 500' , 20' x 110' x 14'...scraps cut off from building lots or just a ditch or wet area.
I've gotten a few very nice hidden value sleepers over the years, but the popularity of the quick buck "How to" shysters on the infomercials has gotten so many nubie bidders attending or online, they've taken prices to the SEV in many cases after commissions and fees...
Add to that the additional gas and travel and it's rarely worth looking at 20-30 of them every week like I used to.
There are plenty of leftover dogs from last year's auction, see "Results" link.
Buyer beware!!!


----------



## Nick Adams (Mar 10, 2005)

Bambicidal Maniac said:


> That is in direct conflict with something another person said and I really don't know which of you is correct


My earlier answer was in a historical context. The majority of our state lands are a result of tax forfeited lands reverting to the state.

As others have pointed out, the law appears to have changed around 1999 (link). As of that date counties have the option of a) doing the foreclosures themselves (land reverts to the counties, state has a right of first refusal at any sale) OR b) having the state continue to do the foreclosures for them (land reverts to the state).

I have no idea as to how many counties have chosen to do their own foreclosures vs letting the state foreclose for them.

-na


----------



## Bambicidal Maniac (Feb 4, 2011)

Thanks, jimp. I'm still not clear how the state is getting some of these landlocked parcels if the counties can't force them to take them. If we're paying the appraised price on those, somebody at the DNR is gambling with our money.


----------



## Bambicidal Maniac (Feb 4, 2011)

Nick Adams said:


> As others have pointed out, the law appears to have changed around 1999 (link). As of that date counties have the option of a) doing the foreclosures themselves (land reverts to the counties, state has a right of first refusal at any sale) OR b) having the state continue to do the foreclosures for them (land reverts to the state).


Thanks Nick. That clears up some of the confusion, sorta. It looks like the county can't cherry pick the properties. It's all or none.


----------



## JimP (Feb 8, 2002)

In the context of my earlier post on the County auctions, I remember a beautiful 5-6 acre State owned tax reverted parcel that was about a 1/4 mile along and inside a bend on the Betsie river. The two abutting inland property owners had the full use of the river acreage because they had access. There was no public access across their land, only riparian access from the river itself. Some guides used it for shore lunch. No one bid, including either of the abutting owners...why pay taxes on land that you can have almost exclusive use of anyway. This was 20 years or so back and I can't find it now...


----------



## Bambicidal Maniac (Feb 4, 2011)

jimp said:


> In the context of my earlier post on the County auctions, I remember a beautiful 5-6 acre State owned tax reverted parcel that was about a 1/4 mile along and inside a bend on the Betsie river. The two abutting inland property owners had the full use of the river acreage because they had access. There was no public access across their land, only riparian access from the river itself. Some guides used it for shore lunch. No one bid, including either of the abutting owners...why pay taxes on land that you can have almost exclusive use of anyway. This was 20 years or so back and I can't find it now...


I can't really blame those two owners for not wanting an easement to state land across their property. Users of state land have a reputation for ignoring private property rights. If that land passed into private ownership, it could be posted against use by those two owners and then an easement could be negotiated or maybe even forced as an easement by necessity.


----------



## Nick Adams (Mar 10, 2005)

Bambicidal Maniac said:


> If that land passed into private ownership, it could be posted against use by those two owners and then an easement could be negotiated *or maybe even forced as an easement by necessity.*


That's not really any option any more. The following 2001 Michigan Supreme Court case ruled on that as an unconstitutional public taking for private benefit.

*TOLKSDORF v. GRIFFITH II*

-na


----------



## JimP (Feb 8, 2002)

In the "For what it's worth", off the thread department, I think I found it.
The green is State land today.
It's blocked off by private land and only accessible by water.
I don't have a current Plat book to see the abutting private ownership today.









It could have been had at a very good price but there was no chance of getting deeded access overland back then, riparian rights only.

The inventory of surplus lands contained many like this all over the State.


----------



## Forest Meister (Mar 7, 2010)

Bambicidal Maniac said:


> Thanks, jimp. I'm still not clear how the state is getting some of these landlocked parcels if the counties can't force them to take them. If we're paying the appraised price on those, somebody at the DNR is gambling with our money.


I seriously doubt the parcels you are referring to are recent acquisitions. Lands that have no access or only foot access, or areas that are too small or wet for an "improvement", or areas with some sort of environmental liability are of little use to anybody so when the DNR trys to sell these "old" parcels that were forced upon them pre law change they can and usually do remain available for a long, long, time. FM


----------



## JimP (Feb 8, 2002)

Forest Meister said:


> I seriously doubt the parcels you are referring to are recent acquisitions. Lands that have no access or only foot access, or areas that are too small or wet for an "improvement", or areas with some sort of environmental liability are of little use to anybody so when the DNR trys to sell these "old" parcels that were forced upon them pre law change they can and usually do remain available for a long, long, time. FM


Exactly my experiences: About 25 years ago there were abundant below market land sales everywhere.
A lot of those DNR properties went unsold as inaccessible. 
About the same time as the large DNR tax sales, Packaging Corp of America was also disposing of large parcels of land for a couple hundred bucks an acre. A lot of people got great deals if they had disposable cash on hand.


----------



## Bambicidal Maniac (Feb 4, 2011)

Nick Adams said:


> That's not really any option any more. The following 2001 Michigan Supreme Court case ruled on that as an unconstitutional public taking for private benefit.
> 
> *TOLKSDORF v. GRIFFITH II*
> 
> -na


That ruling shot down the constitutionality of the Private Roads Act, but not necessarily all easements by necessity. One specific exception is the case of when an improper subdivision occurred by oversight. Of course, proving that is the sticky wicket. This potential exception to the ruling cited is alluded to here in one of the dissents.

As noted in Judge Holbrook, Sr.'s dissent in White Pine Hunting Club [supra at 151-152, 237 N.W.2d 223], the analytical basis for enforcing a common-law easement by necessity is the assumption that the parties who have originally created the landlocked parcel intended that the owner of the landlocked parcel have access to the land over the other's parcel. &#8194; Accordingly, with a common-law easement by necessity, all the court is really doing is enforcing the original intent of the parties. &#8194;Id. at 152, 237 N.W.2d 223. &#8194;[McKeighan II, supra at 214-215, 593 N.W.2d 605 (Talbot, P.J., dissenting).]&#8195;An implied easement also arises only when the land on which the easement is sought was once part of the same parcel that is now landlocked. &#8194; 1 Cameron, Michigan Real Property Law, §&#8194;6.9, p. 199 (2d ed.). &#8194; *Missing from the private roads act is some conduct by the party whose land is burdened or his predecessor, indicating assent to the burden imposed.*


If one can show that an oversight occurred and that there was intent to provide easements for all parcels in a past subdivision, but somehow one failed to be recorded with a deeded easement, the implied easement might be upheld. If all three parcels were subdivided from the same parent parcel, the court might have to decide which of the two parcels, if either, might be subject to a forced easement.


----------



## Bambicidal Maniac (Feb 4, 2011)

Forest Meister said:


> I seriously doubt the parcels you are referring to are recent acquisitions. Lands that have no access or only foot access, or areas that are too small or wet for an "improvement", or areas with some sort of environmental liability are of little use to anybody so when the DNR trys to sell these "old" parcels that were forced upon them pre law change they can and usually do remain available for a long, long, time. FM


Doesn't that indicate that the appraised value is higher than the FMV? The value to the DNR is $0 if the public can't get there from here. The value to the economy is negative, due to the lost tax revenue.


----------



## leechwrangler (Aug 9, 2010)

who sets up in diffrent states what the right of way is?


----------



## leechwrangler (Aug 9, 2010)

this forum either has really smart people and know quit a bit or people who are insane with to much time on their hands to think about this.not sure which one yet(wink-wink)


----------



## Bambicidal Maniac (Feb 4, 2011)

leechwrangler said:


> who sets up in diffrent states what the right of way is?


If I understand your question, the answer is the state legislature, but it is bounded by the state's constitution and the US Constitution. Private property cannot be taken for public purposes without compensation. This means the state can buy a right of way, but it would have to compensate the landowner and if the condemnation process was used (meaning if the easement was forced), the public purpose would have to meet the test of "public good". I'm not a lawyer, but I think this means the following statements are true. The state could not then turn around and sell the land to a private citizen if it had forced the easement through the condemnation process. Private property cannot be taken and transferred to another private interest, even if there was compensation, except in the enforcement of a contract or through tax forfeiture.


----------



## Seaarkshooter (Nov 5, 2009)

leechwrangler said:


> this forum either has really smart people and know quit a bit or people who are insane with to much time on their hands to think about this.not sure which one yet(wink-wink)



If you are pushing the "useful idiot" button, this "socialist" would like to add that not only is there both here, but a newcomer has recently shown a brilliant combination of both. Lol

I have to admit though, I didn't come to this conclusion solely on my own. In a rare display of unveiling the mystery for me, which he Seldomly does, a sage of minkdom gave a spot on evaluation of where this dynamic combination of traits geographically comes from in the State, what its predatory habits and ambitions are and why it behaves the way it does. = )

Thats just my additional two cents of bile...


_OutdoorHub Mobile, the information engine of the outdoors_


----------



## leechwrangler (Aug 9, 2010)

i guess my question is why in iowa on a federal road u can you trap the right of way in. michigan you cant.im not looking for if we should or shouldnt just why on one fedral road you can and one you can not.was the right of ways retained by iowa and given to the land owners here?or is it the dnr just calls the shots on it?


----------



## Bambicidal Maniac (Feb 4, 2011)

leechwrangler said:


> i guess my question is why in iowa on a federal road u can you trap the right of way in. michigan you cant.im not looking for if we should or shouldnt just why on one fedral road you can and one you can not.was the right of ways retained by iowa and given to the land owners here?or is it the dnr just calls the shots on it?


I suspect it's just that both state DNR's call the shots and one decided one way and the other decided the other.


----------



## Bambicidal Maniac (Feb 4, 2011)

Seaarkshooter said:


> If you are pushing the "useful idiot" button, this "socialist" would like to add that not only is there both here, but a newcomer has recently shown a brilliant combination of both. Lol
> 
> I have to admit though, I didn't come to this conclusion solely on my own. In a rare display of unveiling the mystery for me, which he Seldomly does, a sage of minkdom gave a spot on evaluation of where this dynamic combination of traits geographically comes from in the State, what its predatory habits and ambitions are and why it behaves the way it does. = )
> 
> Thats just my additional two cents of bile...


It's not surprising that people who support an economically insupportable position would come to the same insupportable or irrelevant conclusions and use similar tactics to focus attention away from what is relevant.


----------



## PsEbUcKmAsTeR17 (Oct 5, 2005)

Wow there are many good points here, however, the state selling off this land will not give the state anymore revenue than the many licenses that the state would loose out on without this land. Last year alone the state sold over 1.5 million hunting licenses during the firearm season alone (*This being a combination of residents and non residents) how many of those people do you think would hunt in this state if it werent for the state land? Not to mention all the money that these people spend in the small towns in which they stay in. This is good not only for the state but all the local businesses too. 

How many other licenses do you think the state sells to people using thses lands proposed for sale? Waterfowl, small game, fishing and fur harvesters? Think about how much revenue hunters and fishermen alone bring to this state being residents or non residents. 

Mind you I havent even mentioned snowmobiling and four wheeling. How much money comes from ORV stickers? How many ORV trails are in the great north that are state land? How much money do you think guys spend on gas and snacks at gas stations while riding there machines?

This to me is asinine to think that putting a cap on the land the DNRE can own is going to solve the problems this state has.

To me the only thing that seems "anti business" is getting rid of this land. Look at how much of a dent the "No Baiting Law" put in the money some small northern businesses lost in the last few years alone. That hurt these small businesses more that you will ever know. How many do you think went out of business? One could only imagine how detrimental this would be to these businesses for the lands proposed to be sold.... That to me is anti business....

There are alot more places the state could save money. 

I guess throw me into the socialist category....

BTW can someone give me the information on who and how to contact them on my *DISAGREEMENT* to this bill?

-Psebuckmaster17-


----------



## Seaarkshooter (Nov 5, 2009)

I completely agree with you, Comrade! Lol

Here's a link to Michigan House site to find and contact your Congressman:

http://www.house.mi.gov/mhrpublic/


----------



## PsEbUcKmAsTeR17 (Oct 5, 2005)

Seaarkshooter said:


> I completely agree with you, Comrade! Lol
> 
> Here's a link to Michigan House site to find and contact your Congressman:
> 
> http://www.house.mi.gov/mhrpublic/


 
Thanks Dennis....

-Psebuckmaster17-


----------



## Bambicidal Maniac (Feb 4, 2011)

PsEbUcKmAsTeR17 said:


> Wow there are many good points here, however, the state selling off this land will not give the state anymore revenue than the many licenses that the state would loose out on without this land.


Apparently you didn't read very well. According to supporters of the bill, we are 5 years away from hitting the cap. There is no indication that the amount of land we have now is insufficient or is negatively impacting either the tourist or forest fiber sectors of the economy or that more land will positively impact those sectors. It is the economic demand for more recreational land and more forest fiber that determines whether we have enough of it, not the wishful thinking of those who want an ever-growing supply of government cheese. You're basically just offering the same insupportable opinions already presented and ignoring the risk presented by uncapped growth of unearned entitlements.




> How many other licenses do you think the state sells to people using thses lands proposed for sale?


I don't know, but probably close to zero, since there apparently are no lands proposed for sale yet, with the exception of tax reverted land that the state has on its books.



> Mind you I havent even mentioned snowmobiling and four wheeling. How much money comes from ORV stickers? How many ORV trails are in the great north that are state land? How much money do you think guys spend on gas and snacks at gas stations while riding there machines?


You have not shown that any decrease would occur as a result of this cap, so the answers to all these questions are irrelevant.



> This to me is asinine to think that putting a cap on the land the DNRE can own is going to solve the problems this state has.


Nobody made that claim. Only that it would be part of the solution while at the same time, it would be anti-socialism, which is one of the reasons it would be part of the solution.



> To me the only thing that seems "anti business" is getting rid of this land. Look at how much of a dent the "No Baiting Law" put in the money some small northern businesses lost in the last few years alone. That hurt these small businesses more that you will ever know. How many do you think went out of business?


The no baiting law reduced demand for hunting licenses, but there's no logical reason to believe this bill would do that. The state is not lacking in places to hunt.



> One could only imagine how detrimental this would be to these businesses for the lands proposed to be sold.... That to me is anti business....


...and on and on and on, irrelevantly.



> I guess throw me into the socialist category....



Yep. Driven by wishful thinking for more personal gain regardless of the consequences to others. It would be great if people would take responsibility for the consequences of the positions they hold, but if Michigan continues to have problems competing against the other states, the socialists have a list of false causes to blame that on. They'll avoid whatever truth they must in order to protect the belief that their government cheese is something they earned.​


----------



## Beaverhunter2 (Jan 22, 2005)

Personally, I think our public lands are one of the most valuable pro-business assets this state has. There is certainly no shortage of available land for development in this state. Drive around the NLP and the UP- "For Sale" signs dot the landscape. A friend just bought 80 acres southwest of Port Sanilac (about 60% wooded- the rest farm and food plot) for less than $1200 per acre. He's currently negotiating the purchase of the adjoining 80. He thinks he can get it for less.

I guess my major concern with this Bill is that it seems rather arbitrary. BM, you've suggested that a cap is a good thing and once it is in place, if people want to change the number they can make their case in the Legislature. I guess my perspective is that those advocating a cap should have to defend the number chosen and the need for a cap at all. If, as you say, we are 5 years from reaching the level of the proposed cap (the DNR's presentation at the June NRC Meeting would disagree with you), I would also ask you to convince us why we need one "_now"_.

This is likely to be something we will have to agree to disagree on. I respect your opinion. However, I disagree with it and remain unconvinced that a cap on state land ownership is a necessity or a positive thing for Michigan.

From what I have seen, there is plenty of land available in Michigan at prices far below what would have been considered a great deal only a few short years ago. I believe that PILT reform is needed. But I don't believe in throwing the baby out with the bath water.

JMO 

John


----------



## Bambicidal Maniac (Feb 4, 2011)

Beaverhunter2 said:


> BM, you've suggested that a cap is a good thing and once it is in place, if people want to change the number they can make their case in the Legislature. I guess my perspective is that those advocating a cap should have to defend the number chosen and the need for a cap at all. If, as you say, we are 5 years from reaching the level of the proposed cap (the DNR's presentation at the June NRC Meeting would disagree with you), I would also ask you to convince us why we need one "_now"_.


One of the tricks of the socialists is to require those who seek to limit the growth of government to justify opposing more government. I'm not gonna play that game. If ever we don't require justification and in particular, economic justification for more government we will get ever more government and we will suffer from the results of that. That path has lead us to mediocrity in our economic competition with the other states and with other countries. Given how easy it is for people to leave or invest their capital in other places or buy products from other places, we probably want to reverse that.



> This is likely to be something we will have to agree to disagree on. I respect your opinion. However, I disagree with it and remain unconvinced that a cap on state land ownership is a necessity or a positive thing for Michigan.


Of course, you're entitled to your opinion, but you're doing nothing to earn credibility for a belief in unlimited public ownership of land. We already have too many problems with tyranny of the majority through taxation and regulation. I don't see the value of adding rent to the list of things the majority can dictate.



> From what I have seen, there is plenty of land available in Michigan at prices far below what would have been considered a great deal only a few short years ago. I believe that PILT reform is needed. But I don't believe in throwing the baby out with the bath water.
> 
> JMO


The question is whether you can build a convincing business case for *more* public ownership of land. That's not what I'm seeing from anybody. There might be a convincing economic case for some public ownership, but none has been offered for *more *public ownership and we might already be past the point where we begin to harm our competitiveness through the addition of public land.


----------



## Beaverhunter2 (Jan 22, 2005)

BM, If you think that the competition for land in Michigan is driving down Michigan's competitiveness with other states you are missing a few more significant drivers- comparatively high labor costs, a poorly structured business tax system, transportation inefficiencies, low quality of life in most of the urban centers (thus not attractive to highly skilled potential employees), an anti-business legal system, etc.

You talk about the "socialists" drive for "personal gain". Let's be realistic. I and most Michigan residents know we will never even see 95% of the publicly-owned land in the state. However, we do know that the availbility of public land for recreation draws people into the upper portions of the state. Some come to play and some come to stay (often retired people). And both are a good thing, because without their dollars, there's not much left to generate economic activity. A little timber, a little mining, and a little gas and oil but that's pretty much it. Tourism is the second largest source of economic activity in Michigan. Since there is only limited manufacturing north of Midland, that means that tourism is number one up there. You say I have to convince you we don't already have enough land. I say you have to convince me we do. I would not be adverse to eliminating the State's first right of refusal on tax-reverted land, but if the land in question was truly that valuable, I'd have to wonder why someone is giving it up for the taxes.

My last comment on this topic is that you claim that public land is somehow viewed by "socialists" as an unearned entitlement thus suggesting that capitalists (and libertarians like me) should believe that the government should own little or no (or no more than 7.5%) of the land. The way I see it is I did earn the use of what little of that land I might because I paid my taxes and I'm sure not getting much else for it. I'm also comforted that it will be there for my children's and grandchildren's enjoyment because the only other legacy we are leaving them is massive government debt to fund _real _socialistic entitlement programs.

I will oppose the cap. You will support it. Besides our natural resources, that's the beauty of America- we have choices.

John


----------



## Bambicidal Maniac (Feb 4, 2011)

Beaverhunter2 said:


> BM, If you think that the competition for land in Michigan is driving down Michigan's competitiveness with other states you are missing a few more significant drivers- comparatively high labor costs, a poorly structured business tax system, transportation inefficiencies, low quality of life in most of the urban centers (thus not attractive to highly skilled potential employees), an anti-business legal system, etc.


You forgot rent seeking by people who are using government to get a growing allotment of government cheese. Lots of things are driving down Michigan's competitiveness, but investor confidence in the ability of the state to place limits on its socialists is probably the biggest. There's no way to prove its the biggest until you put the limits on the socialists, but it works for the reason that it is pro-business to let businesses be.



> You talk about the "socialists" drive for "personal gain". Let's be realistic. I and most Michigan residents know we will never even see 95% of the publicly-owned land in the state. However, we do know that the availbility of public land for recreation draws people into the upper portions of the state. Some come to play and some come to stay (often retired people). And both are a good thing, because without their dollars, there's not much left to generate economic activity. A little timber, a little mining, and a little gas and oil but that's pretty much it. Tourism is the second largest source of economic activity in Michigan. Since there is only limited manufacturing north of Midland, that means that tourism is number one up there.


Right, and it is rent seeking behavior for the people who live up here to use government to set aside more land for the sake of their local economy. When the government picks winners and losers, it distorts the economy and sends a bad message to investors. They'd rather have a government that lets the markets be.



> You say I have to convince you we don't already have enough land. I say you have to convince me we do.


That's how socialists operate. I thought you said you weren't one. You might want to reconsider that.



> My last comment on this topic is that you claim that public land is somehow viewed by "socialists" as an unearned entitlement


I do not. I claim that socialists view it as a deserved or earned entitlement. The problem is that it isn't. As long as we're talking about low value land and a few parks here and there, the danger is low. When you go beyond that into significant quantities of productive land, That is an example of the government significantly messing with the market.



> thus suggesting that capitalists (and libertarians like me) should believe that the government should own little or no (or no more than 7.5%) of the land. The way I see it is I did earn the use of what little of that land I might because I paid my taxes and I'm sure not getting much else for it.


Do you have any idea how common it is for socialists to deny being socialists and claim they are libertarians and claim they are earning a growing share of benefits supplied by government? You will not earn any credibility until you back away from the 100% limit and then justify the limit you recommend. In the meantime your inability to economically justify more government is just becoming more and more obvious.



> I'm also comforted that it will be there for my children's and grandchildren's enjoyment because the only other legacy we are leaving them is massive government debt to fund _real _socialistic entitlement programs.


In Michigan, we aren't leaving them a massive debt, because we have a balanced budget requirement. We're just leaving them a legacy of too much government and the consequent lack of investor confidence. Free use of land is just as much a socialistic entitlement as free service in an ER. Failure to place a limit on its growth is symptomatic of a general attitude toward using government to get freebies.



> I will oppose the cap. You will support it. Besides our natural resources, that's the beauty of America- we have choices.


And so do the investors who look at Michigan and see a blue state mentality in our economic policies and look elsewhere for a place to make a buck.


----------



## Mister ED (Apr 3, 2006)

OMG ... do you argue with yourself in your sleep too?


----------



## Bambicidal Maniac (Feb 4, 2011)

Mister ED said:


> OMG ... do you argue with yourself in your sleep too?


Only when I dream that I've unwittingly been supporting a socialist position. Then I do the right thing. I man up and reject the socialist position. After that I sleep fine. :lol::lol:


----------

