SB209 - Revise term length of conservation easements

[The_Yuki_Yama]

Exactly.

ahhh okay, so not that they are perpetual, but that they CAN be perpetual. I get your point now.

 

[Ben Long]

Conservation easements that are not perpetual are basically leases or rents. This bill would essentially destroy conservation easements as a real-world tool for access and conservation. It's been about 30 years since FWP inked an easement on the Thompson River. If that had been a "termed" contract, it would be coming due real soon. The developers and Yellowstone-wannabes would be drooling over the winter range and rank-and-file hunters would over a barrel. The pols have no regard for future generations.

 

[Hawk Tuah]

People should be able to do what they want with the land they own.

 

[RandanP]

The hearing is on 02/04/2025 at 8:00 AM, room 303 with the Senate Judiciary Committee.

 

[Big Fin]

The hearing is on 02/04/2025 at 8:00 AM, room 303 with the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Thanks. Clearing my schedule now. Working on my cussing-suppression techniques until then.

 

[ismith]

Thanks. Clearing my schedule now. Working on my cussing-suppression techniques until then.

Planning an after party may help.

 

[thebestusernamesaretaken]

This is puzzling to me as well. What’s the motivation behind restricting these easements? Future ability to develop?

Drill baby drill

 

[thebestusernamesaretaken]

Thanks. Clearing my schedule now. Working on my cussing-suppression techniques until then.

Get after it! Wind him up everyone!

 

[ismith]

Drill baby drill

We definitely need to make more babies in this country...............

 

[shoots-straight]

Thanks. Clearing my schedule now. Working on my cussing-suppression techniques until then.

You know how to supress cussing? I'm full blown cuss aholic and have almost zero hope to even slow down. 46 years in the trades and this is the result.

 

[Big Fin]

You know how to supress cussing? I'm full blown cuss aholic and have almost zero hope to even slow down. 46 years in the trades and this is the result.

My wife gives me small reminders to use when the urge overtakes me. Growing up in a logging family I didn’t know some of it was cussing until I got demerits in Kindergarten.

 

[antlerradar]

Drill baby drill

Likely more to do with surface development. Most landowners can not sign a conservation easement that will restrict oil and gas development because of the split ownership of surface and minerals.

 

[Big Fin]

Likely more to do with surface development. Most landowners can not sign a conservation easement that will restrict oil and gas development because of the split ownership of surface and minerals.

Yup. But that fact doesn't fit the narrative, so those hating on landowners exercising their surface right via a conservation easement continue to pollute the debate with horseshit (with all due respect to the value of horses, and even their shit).

Same when they claim that CEs take property off the tax rolls. Complete bullshit (again, nothing against bulls or their shit). The value of any ag production land is so low under Montana law that I could never craft a CE that could get the property value as low as what is allowed under the Montana ag classification laws.

Example - a farm or ranch that could sell to a Bozeman developer for $20 million, is likely assessed at $1 million (or less) for property tax purposes, due to the Montana ag property classification laws. Even if I place a conservation easement on the property and take the value down to $5 million (pretty difficult to do) it doesn't change the county tax collections, as it is only be taxed as a $1 million property at the current time, due to the MT ag classification laws. Thus, it doesn't change county property taxes by a penny.

Yet, that is the kind of bullshit these folks deal in. If knowledge and practical experience were currency, the legislators pushing these bills would be in bankruptcy.

 

[SixPoint]

If there was ever a bill to burn your political capital on, this is the one. Sen. Tezak, my senator, will be hearing from me and several other landowners who aren’t real impressed with this nonsense.

 

[thebestusernamesaretaken]

Yup. But that fact doesn't fit the narrative, so those hating on landowners exercising their surface right via a conservation easement continue to pollute the debate with horseshit (with all due respect to the value of horses, and even their shit).

Same when they claim that CEs take property off the tax rolls. Complete bullshit (again, nothing against bulls or their shit). The value of any ag production land is so low under Montana law that I could never craft a CE that could get the property value as low as what is allowed under the Montana ag classification laws.

Example - a farm or ranch that could sell to a Bozeman developer for $20 million, is likely assessed at $1 million (or less) for property tax purposes, due to the Montana ag property classification laws. Even if I place a conservation easement on the property and take the value down to $5 million (pretty difficult to do) it doesn't change the county tax collections, as it is only be taxed as a $1 million property at the current time, due to the MT ag classification laws. Thus, it doesn't change county property taxes by a penny.

Yet, that is the kind of bullshit these folks deal in. If knowledge and practical experience were currency, the legislators pushing these bills would be in bankruptcy.

going to need a cussing jar ! But it's appreciated!