SB209 - Revise term length of conservation easements

[antlerradar]

I think dang near anything is possible when looking towards a perpetual future. One of the big arguments I hear against CEs is that “we don’t know what the conditions/lands/ranching economy/etc” will be. And that’s also a great argument for them.

I’d never have thought they’d put a Weaver subdivision out in the middle of 410, that’s now like a mini Wisconsin, replete with vacation cabins, food plots, and box blinds across the middle of an important travel corridor for elk and on the fringes of core Sage grouse habitat. Or a subdivision south of Crooked Creek reservoir along the Musselshell way out on the backside of beyond.

I loved SB442 but was worried about the implications of improving more of those gumbo roads that lead to private parcels within larger chunks of the CMR and BLM out there, that are currently ripe for more of this, especially with one less tool in the box should this BS pass.

Not to just pick on you, but I think that people are miss reading my thinking or more likely I am just not communicating clearly. Sure a subdivision is a possibility in the middle of no where eastern Montana. Going back to Randy's post, @Big Fin used the phrase "highest and best use". Subdivisions are not driving land values in middle of no where MT, multi million and billionaires that want a ranch are. A CA that does not include access for the public will not lower the value to the billionaires by even a dollar. Even if access is included, I wonder if the value would be lowered enough to make a big change in the tax value, as many of the billionaires are not buying for hunting. Again I am no tax guy and could be missing somthing.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Great news! Just watched the bill’s testimony and was pleasantly surprised by the overwhelming level of opposition from across the spectrum.

I really can’t believe the this issue is still part of the party’s platform when seemingly every multi-generation stockgrower in the state seems to be against such legislation.

I wish some of the opponents, who allegedly represent private land interests, would have had the gall to hear the testimony of the private land owners.

It seems, to me, blatant disrespect to not hear out the multi-generational families speaking on the bill.

The only way legislators will know that their special interest donors are not their constituents - is showing up and telling them.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Not to just pick on you, but I think that people are miss reading my thinking or more likely I am just not communicating clearly. Sure a subdivision is a possibility in the middle of no where eastern Montana. Going back to Randy's post, @Big Fin used the phrase "highest and best use". Subdivisions are not driving land values in middle of no where MT, multi million and billionaires that want a ranch are. A CA that does not include access for the public will not lower the value to the billionaires by even a dollar. Even if access is included, I wonder if the value would be lowered enough to make a big change in the tax value, as many of the billionaires are not buying for hunting. Again I am no tax guy and could be missing somthing.

I dont believe the CE value reduction will beat the existing property tax benefit that an ag property already gets.

Unless - you are saying they wont have enough "value" to sacrfice as an easement to leverage the tax benefits. I see your point there, but if thats the case - i hope a CPA could use comparable areas for leases/development of renewables/data centers to leverage that in the future.