I see @Eric Albus voted yes. It’d be interesting to hear his take on it.
Montana House Bill 676 - This could sell off 1.25M acres of State Trust Lands - that's almost 25%!!! This is not the Homesteading Bill
- Thread starter DP_PublicLands
- Start date
BuzzH
Well-known member
If there was ever a case to point out to R's as an example of "FAFO" that's it...they found out.
I agree, this bill isn't a lot different. Now to see if they want relearn the "find out" part again because they're definitely "f-ing around".
Yup - and we the people pay the price for their ignorance per usual...
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 3,449
Can you provide a link? Curious about more details there...
Southern Elk
Well-known member
How can I find the voting results on this?
Enron's demise adds irony to energy saga
Friday, November 30, 2001 Missoulian Editorial SUMMARY: The energy-trading company that helped spook Montana into deregulating electricity has come undone.
CASE STUDY: ENERGY
Francis Kimberly thinks he knows a thing or two about what’s wrong with corporate America. As an original investor in Northern Natural Gas, the firm that later became Enron Corp., he watched …
www.chicagotribune.com
And on, and on. Google is your friend
Bill tracking in Montana - HB 676 (2025 legislative session) - FastDemocracy
Generally revise state land and water laws
fastdemocracy.com
Click on the March 7 vote. Results pop up
Luke_with_a_lab
Well-known member
Sure would be interesting to hear his rational.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 3,449
Many compromises, much bridges!
Enron's demise adds irony to energy saga
Friday, November 30, 2001 Missoulian Editorial SUMMARY: The energy-trading company that helped spook Montana into deregulating electricity has come undone.missoulian.com
CASE STUDY: ENERGY
Francis Kimberly thinks he knows a thing or two about what’s wrong with corporate America. As an original investor in Northern Natural Gas, the firm that later became Enron Corp., he watched …
And on, and on. Google is your friend
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,752
The reason I voted for it: these sections have no legal access. If sold at fair market value(FVM) the interest earned is more than the lessee payments. Not a bad deal.
Luke_with_a_lab
Well-known member
Only bad deal is it’s public land gone forever. Who knows, perhaps some kind of easement could open that land up in the future.
BuzzH
Well-known member
How do you know they/you/me will never have legal access?
Lesson in why we never want federal lands in state control.
In a state where outdoor recreation is in the top couple economic drivers, I would argue it's a horrific "deal".
Last edited:
Luke_with_a_lab
Well-known member
wonder if state land that touches corner to corner (corner crossing) is would be considered “inaccessible”.
BuzzH
Well-known member
100%.
Eric Albus
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 1,752
The other thought in my mind on this is that the monies gained by sale of inaccessible state properties possibly can build a pool of money for the state to use to purchase a like number of acres (no net acres gained) for the public. The possibility to purchase better places with access to recreational land.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Where in the bill was that guaranteed?
That equal number of acres would be purchased that are accessible?
Why not exchanges rather than disposal if that's the goal?
I smell a rat.
HappyCamper
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2023
- Messages
- 221
Public lands will Never come back once gone. Selling them for cash now is short sighted and the profits will be wasted just like most tax dollars. I wouldn’t trust the money to go toward new lands even if earmarked, especially considering how our marijuana tax was supposed to but ended up in the general fund instead.
Similar threads
