# Man 'bitter' about sale of land to state



## Hamilton Reef (Jan 20, 2000)

Man 'bitter' about sale of land to state

http://www.record-eagle.com/2006/oct/26land.htm

BY SHERI McWHIRTER [email protected]

INDIAN RIVER  A 120-acre tract of lush wetlands and upland areas of pine and oak trees in southwestern Cheboygan County may soon become state land, much to the dissatisfaction of the current owner.

Eugene Balogh of East Jordan owns the property that sits about four miles south of the town of Indian River and about a mile west of the Sturgeon River. He recently sued the state for legal road access to the wilderness area.

A pending land transaction is a negotiated settlement to the litigation. 

State officials tried for years to buy the property, an area surrounded by state forest land in Mentor Township that provides ideal deer and waterfowl habitat.

"We did finally cave in and sell to them. I'm very bitter about it," Balogh said. "You cannot fight the state. They have too much money. This is what you can call a bitter lawsuit settlement."

Balogh declined additional comment, based on his attorney's advice.

The state will pay $120,000 for the land and will cover about $7,000 in fees for withdrawal of the property from the state Commercial Forest Act Program. That system provides tax incentives for landowners to manage their property for commercial timber activities, a program first developed in 1925.

Forested property enrolled in the program must remain without recreational structures, such as hunting cabins, said Cara Boucher, a forest management manager for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. The land must also remain open for public recreation, hunting and fishing, she said.

"The reason we like the property is because it is surrounded by state forest. We're trying to consolidate state land and acquire in-holdings. This would be an in-holding," said Jon Mayes, a DNR land acquisitions manager.

Mayes said the land offers future timber opportunities, excellent wildlife habitat and public recreation areas, especially for hunting.

Berry Creek runs through the southeastern side of the property, near Blueberry Road.

Rebecca Humphries, DNR director, will announce whether the state will buy the property in the negotiated litigation settlement Nov. 9 at the state Natural Resources Commission meeting in Lansing.


----------



## MSUICEMAN (Jan 9, 2002)

too darn bad.... ya didn't have to sell... i doubt they could have won with emminent (sp?) domain since it doesn't serve any more purpose than "The reason we like the property is because it is surrounded by state forest. We're trying to consolidate state land and acquire in-holdings. This would be an in-holding,"


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

INDIAN RIVER  A 120-acre tract of lush wetlands and upland areas of pine and oak trees in southwestern Cheboygan County
The state will pay $120 said:


> ??? Something just doesn't sound right here.
> 
> L & O


----------



## Frantz (Dec 9, 2003)

I have read this a number of times and sorry, I just don't get it, how could they win? Acreage up there is/was going for about $3,000 and more an acre not to long ago, he got screwed hardcore.


----------



## kingfisher 11 (Jan 26, 2000)

Sounds like the piece was landlocked. Surounded by state land and the state would not give him rights to put a road in. Seen this many times in the UP. Sure you own the land but its worthless without a road unless you just want it for hunting.


----------



## Frantz (Dec 9, 2003)

Ahhhh, I see now, I did not think of it being landlocked.


----------



## MSUICEMAN (Jan 9, 2002)

was it landlocked and those terms known when he bought the lot? If he knew it was surrounded by state/fed/city land, and knew then he would have to try to draw a permit to get a road run there, plus any other things such as gas/elec/etc., then he rolled the dice and came up snakeeyes. I don't pity this guy.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

Couldn't he have worked out a swap for other land? I know in the past that was done so the state could have a larger tract of land all in one piece.


----------



## BarryPatch (Jul 21, 2004)

MSUICEMAN said:


> I don't pity this guy.


Neither do I. Nothing wrong with buying landlocked property as long as you like walking.


----------



## kingfisher 11 (Jan 26, 2000)

toto said:


> Couldn't he have worked out a swap for other land? I know in the past that was done so the state could have a larger tract of land all in one piece.



I bet he could have. Probably caused lots of problems and the state figured screw him. He will have to sell sooner or later because he thought he could get a road in. Maybe this guy bouth it as investment to split after he got the road in? He may have bought it for a steal and stll made a tidy sum with the $120,000 offer. I have not pity for ths guy either.


----------



## toto (Feb 16, 2000)

I don't pity the guy either. It would pretty stupid on his part to buy landlocked property knowing fairly certainly that the state isn't going to let him have ingress and regress. Of course you take the fact that apparantely (sic?) he has had this property enrolled in the forestry program tells me he didn't pay all the much taxes over the years either. So I quess what I'm saying is, whats he whining for???


----------



## 22 Chuck (Feb 2, 2006)

Would be interesting to know when he bought it.


----------



## Beave (Aug 26, 2002)

Don't assume it was landlocked when he bought it. He may have had access through a neighbor's property who in turn sold to the state or defaulted on his property taxes and the state seized the land.


----------

