BuzzH
Well-known member
Classic case of the public being lied to by those they vote into office.
You get the Government you elect...well done Montana!
You get the Government you elect...well done Montana!
Stafford Ferry CE
- Thread starter BigHornRam
- Start date
I’m guessing we’ll see more and more examples like this in the next ten years. It’s simultaneously depressing and infuriating.
Addicting
Well-known member
Has anyone actually communicated with the county commissioners to see why they don’t support it? Maybe there is a compromise verses a lynching that can be done.
I tend to support not in perpetuity. Doing it for the next 20, 50, or 99 years is still a win that won’t infringe on future property owners rights. Why does a property owner 647 years from now, in a completely different landscape, have to deal with the perpetual decision made today?
I’m sure there is a win here for Conservation if folks are willing to discuss it.
I tend to support not in perpetuity. Doing it for the next 20, 50, or 99 years is still a win that won’t infringe on future property owners rights. Why does a property owner 647 years from now, in a completely different landscape, have to deal with the perpetual decision made today?
I’m sure there is a win here for Conservation if folks are willing to discuss it.
TheJason
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2024
- Messages
- 18,557
Why not? They know the terms going into the purchase. It’s no different that protected wetland areas that can’t be developed.
I've seen a letter expressing concerns relative to mineral rights and some issues with road maintenance. All legitimate concerns, but ultimately the mineral rights are not conveyed under the CE as those are separate from the surface rights. The split estate laws of the west generally favor mineral right owners both in terms of conservation and trespass rights. The other issues are how the fight between UPOM and APR continues to color the issue with local governments, tax bases and concerns over being able to manage the assets they have now with potentially fewer tax dollars. Whether or not you agree with their concerns - those folks are the decision makers for a lot of things in the county, and getting in early with them on topics like this is mission critical. It's a good reminder that long-lasting, deeply personal relationships with these kinds of decision makers can be the most effective tool for advocating on the issue. One off carpet bombing of form emails, phone calls etc from people not in the county won't do much to influence the commission. 10-15 landowners sitting down with them to discuss why they engage in CE's may.
The biggest issue here aside from the loss of the CE itself is that the family has been negotiating in good faith with the agency and at the last minute, a decision is made that throws hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars away while undermining confidence in the agency. If you work in the area and have done years of meetings, hard discussions and building trust - what does that do for any chances with other landowners, or folks who would be open to increased access through block management, etc? What does that decision do at the ground level for wildlife and local folks who are looking for ways to stay on the land?
The state has a 30 and 40 year leasing program available under Habitat MT. It's a good addition to the program that's been developed thoughtfully along the way. However - that isn't what the property owner wanted. They wanted a CE that had permanence. They engaged in an arrangement with a state agency to get that and then had the rug pulled out from under them because of the political situation in Helena. Each CE that has to go before the Land Board needs 3 votes to become finalized. Getting those three votes is increasingly difficult and the one person who has been an advocate for getting these through (Gianforte) has been frustrated with the lack of support these easements get locally as well as the attempts to undermine CE's in general from groups like UPOM and Citizens for Balanced Use.
As to why a property owner today gets to make decisions about land they own boils down to one of the founding principles of this nation: private property rights. The same thing happens across the US when we fill in local wetlands where people used to catch fish and hunt rabbits for another Panera Bread and Walgreens, when we develop winter range for 10 acre horse ghettos in the west, or we turn the last good bear habitat in PA into 1/2 acre home tracts with pre-fabs. The essence of private property rights is that the current owner gets to make the decision of what to do with that land - it is theirs. If we start down the road of saying they can't have permanent CE's, you simply give away a right before you exercise it. That seems counter to the American way to me, personally. King George didn't want us to own land. He wanted to control all of it for himself. We impolitely told him to get the #*^@#* out. We should remember that.
BuzzH
Well-known member
It's not a win at all if you're not able to make a decision and exercise your rights regarding something you own.
A future owner doesn't have to deal with a perpetual CE because they aren't required to buy the land to start with.
If they don't like the perpetual CE, go find another property to your liking.
Setting aside the blatant Constitutional violation that comes with placing term-certain constraints on a property owner's exercise of their property, we should look at how foolish this concept is when applied to other property that folks have less interest in controlling the use of.
Saying a property owner can sell/transfer/donate a property right is laughable when you think about it. It would be like saying you can only sell that cow for a week and then the sale is null. Or, when you buy stock, those shares are only yours for twenty months. You wanna buy that piece of hunting ground (a common dream I suspect many here have), but the seller isn't allow to transfer/sell a property right for perpetuity, so you buy it knowing under the new anti-perpetuity state laws that it goes back on the market in ten years.
Sounds ridiculous, right? It is ridiculous.
Yet, that is exactly the same thing that is being told to property owners that they can only sell/transfer/donate one of their real property rights for a term certain period. That notion is equally ridiculous.
The difference is because some Fake Property Rights Defenders say its a bad idea, there's a ton of spoon feeding going on where people are willing to trample the rights of others because if fits their way of thinking. They need to be called out for the hypocrites they are.
Saying a property owner can sell/transfer/donate a property right is laughable when you think about it. It would be like saying you can only sell that cow for a week and then the sale is null. Or, when you buy stock, those shares are only yours for twenty months. You wanna buy that piece of hunting ground (a common dream I suspect many here have), but the seller isn't allow to transfer/sell a property right for perpetuity, so you buy it knowing under the new anti-perpetuity state laws that it goes back on the market in ten years.
Sounds ridiculous, right? It is ridiculous.
Yet, that is exactly the same thing that is being told to property owners that they can only sell/transfer/donate one of their real property rights for a term certain period. That notion is equally ridiculous.
The difference is because some Fake Property Rights Defenders say its a bad idea, there's a ton of spoon feeding going on where people are willing to trample the rights of others because if fits their way of thinking. They need to be called out for the hypocrites they are.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Therein lies the ideological problem. If making a dime during your lifetime, or hunting during your healthy years is paramount ... and the condition of the Gallatin, Yellowstone, and Missouri Rivers and associated landscapes once you're gone doesn't mean a fling to you ... then I get the attitude. However, I want something better in PERPETUITY not only for my progeny ... but also for that of the rancher landowner of this potential CE property, as he/she desires somthing better!
Addicting
Well-known member
Presumptive that will still be the case 647 years from now. None of us know what the future holds. There are very few places so special that a in perpetuity clause makes sense. A easement is not one of them. It should be reviewed and renewed in the future at some point.
Forcing generations unborn to heed your will when we are but a blip in the timeline is not something I’m in to.
Addicting
Well-known member
You can have dreams and plans for the future generations. But your current choice based off from your current shouldn’t override their opportunity for a choice in their reality.
I'm recovering from a week-long bout of pneumonia and the meds are finally allowing me to get off the couch, albeit barking like a stranded seal. I hope to have the energy today to give more push on this topic to our elected officials.
What I provide here is 30 years of experience as a CPA whose specialty was Trust and Estate planning. Over the course of that career I've probably assisted 30 families with CEs that was integral to their transition planning for the family business. I've been the Trustee for a family for over 20 years and I have two ranches in that Trust, one of which has a CE placed on it.
Let's remember, for the most critical properties we hope to keep as working farms/ranches, these are family businesses and livelihoods, not recreational playgrounds.
Here are some facts I wish promoters of the anti-perp mantra would understand. I write these, knowing full well that most would have zero reason to understand them as they've not dealt with it in anything other than rhetorical abstraction, such as a debate on a forum like this. That makes sense. If not for my experience, I'd have no basis to relate.
Of the 30+/- CEs I've done, it was the best solution in a toolbox of imperfect solutions. I suspect twice that many families considered the idea, but it wasn't the right solution for their goals. So, we never pursued it.
For those who did it, they didn't do it for property savings, as if you are smart and already have an ag exemption on your land, a CE is not going to save you a penny in property taxes.
For those who did it, they were facing a huge estate tax bill, usually when there was only one remaining parent. It is easy to defer estate taxes on the death of the first parent. The challenge comes with no surviving spouse to pass it to.
Hardly any did it for the income tax benefits. These folks don't have enough Adjusted Gross Income to utilize even a small percentage of the full charitable donation deduction. Most of a charitable donation deduction goes to waste for these working families.
Most did it for one, or a combination of, three reasons:
1. They sold the easement, or did a bargain sale of the easement, as they needed cash, not tax deductions. This gave them a shot of cash, usually helped pay off some debt, and allowed them to stay on the land. Yeah, it resulted in some capital gain tax, but selling, even at a discount was helpful.
2. They were facing a huge estate tax bill. Gallatin Valley might be an extreme example, but if you see an aerial view today, versus 20 years ago, you will see which properties are under CEs and which were not at the time someone passed. Just look at the farms gobbled up by developers. Those parcels were usually people who didn't plan and when the estate bill came due nine months after death, they needed to have cash from a sale. If you're gonna sell, you may as well get the most money, which will be a developer.
3. They wanted to retain the legacy of this farm/ranch and not allow their kids/grandkids to liquidate it and go live the flashy life. Most of these folks have been on these properties for many generations. Until you sit at the kitchen table and listen to them talk about it and how much it means, what this represents, the hardships endured, it's hard to comprehend how important it is to them that this land not be subdivided or made into ranchettes. Very often they love the wildlife the is increasingly dependent upon these undeveloped lands. They take pride in the many other intangibles their properties provide; water quality, quiet space, open views, you name it. Under no circumstance do they want that to go away. Most have existed on very little over their lives and their not of the "growth cures all problems" mindset that seems to be sweeping over Montana. In fact, these folks reject that notion and are true minimalist and thus believe in conserving what they have.
The decisions to do this were usually 2-5 year decisions. Once the decision was made, it was usually another 2 years to get everything in place. It required a lot of financial planning, changing bank loans/collateral, maybe gifting to the next generation, and many other important considerations. None of this was them plopping down at my desk and saying, "I talked to Joe at the coffee shop, I wanna do a CE, can you have that ready by Monday?"
With all of this, and much more, taking into account, it is very frustrating to see the ideologues play "God" for nothing more than imposing their own world view over people who don't have that luxury or, let alone any inclination to tell others who to use their property. The spoonfed cronies act as if a CE is some insignificant decision, made on a whim, chosen from many other options, for some evil reason.
That level of arrogance and self-righteousness is only exceeded by the ignorance of people pushing these restrictions. I have yet to encounter any person who is against CEs, even in perpetuity, who has ever been involved in one. To them, this is an abstraction that makes for good electioneering, raise some funds for their campaign, and be able to tell their like-minded friends how they should those conservation-minded folks (working farmers and ranchers) where the bear shits in the buckwheat.
That pisses me off to no end. Yeah, this session will be filled with all kinds of stupid bills related to hunting, technology, seasons, new ways to kill more animals, and you name it. Yet, none of those other bills are as important to me, to people I worked with for decades, to wildlife, and to the core of what makes Montana the place it is, as these attacks on the property rights of working landowners.
We all bemoan the loss of character of a place we love. You read about Montana going through that in a big way. I live in one of the cancer cells of that change. That rapid change makes this core of committed conservation-minded landowners who are holding out agains this tide even more critical to retaining what we have, for them, for us, and for wildlife.
When you think about blindly supporting this notion to take away one of the tools needed to solve some complex challenges, I ask why we should take away a tool, CEs, that might be the best solution for them and their goals. And I'd also ask, since when is it anyone else's business to tell them what they can/can't do, for however long of a window, with property they and their family have struggled to build and keep for generations?
What I provide here is 30 years of experience as a CPA whose specialty was Trust and Estate planning. Over the course of that career I've probably assisted 30 families with CEs that was integral to their transition planning for the family business. I've been the Trustee for a family for over 20 years and I have two ranches in that Trust, one of which has a CE placed on it.
Let's remember, for the most critical properties we hope to keep as working farms/ranches, these are family businesses and livelihoods, not recreational playgrounds.
Here are some facts I wish promoters of the anti-perp mantra would understand. I write these, knowing full well that most would have zero reason to understand them as they've not dealt with it in anything other than rhetorical abstraction, such as a debate on a forum like this. That makes sense. If not for my experience, I'd have no basis to relate.
Of the 30+/- CEs I've done, it was the best solution in a toolbox of imperfect solutions. I suspect twice that many families considered the idea, but it wasn't the right solution for their goals. So, we never pursued it.
For those who did it, they didn't do it for property savings, as if you are smart and already have an ag exemption on your land, a CE is not going to save you a penny in property taxes.
For those who did it, they were facing a huge estate tax bill, usually when there was only one remaining parent. It is easy to defer estate taxes on the death of the first parent. The challenge comes with no surviving spouse to pass it to.
Hardly any did it for the income tax benefits. These folks don't have enough Adjusted Gross Income to utilize even a small percentage of the full charitable donation deduction. Most of a charitable donation deduction goes to waste for these working families.
Most did it for one, or a combination of, three reasons:
1. They sold the easement, or did a bargain sale of the easement, as they needed cash, not tax deductions. This gave them a shot of cash, usually helped pay off some debt, and allowed them to stay on the land. Yeah, it resulted in some capital gain tax, but selling, even at a discount was helpful.
2. They were facing a huge estate tax bill. Gallatin Valley might be an extreme example, but if you see an aerial view today, versus 20 years ago, you will see which properties are under CEs and which were not at the time someone passed. Just look at the farms gobbled up by developers. Those parcels were usually people who didn't plan and when the estate bill came due nine months after death, they needed to have cash from a sale. If you're gonna sell, you may as well get the most money, which will be a developer.
3. They wanted to retain the legacy of this farm/ranch and not allow their kids/grandkids to liquidate it and go live the flashy life. Most of these folks have been on these properties for many generations. Until you sit at the kitchen table and listen to them talk about it and how much it means, what this represents, the hardships endured, it's hard to comprehend how important it is to them that this land not be subdivided or made into ranchettes. Very often they love the wildlife the is increasingly dependent upon these undeveloped lands. They take pride in the many other intangibles their properties provide; water quality, quiet space, open views, you name it. Under no circumstance do they want that to go away. Most have existed on very little over their lives and their not of the "growth cures all problems" mindset that seems to be sweeping over Montana. In fact, these folks reject that notion and are true minimalist and thus believe in conserving what they have.
The decisions to do this were usually 2-5 year decisions. Once the decision was made, it was usually another 2 years to get everything in place. It required a lot of financial planning, changing bank loans/collateral, maybe gifting to the next generation, and many other important considerations. None of this was them plopping down at my desk and saying, "I talked to Joe at the coffee shop, I wanna do a CE, can you have that ready by Monday?"
With all of this, and much more, taking into account, it is very frustrating to see the ideologues play "God" for nothing more than imposing their own world view over people who don't have that luxury or, let alone any inclination to tell others who to use their property. The spoonfed cronies act as if a CE is some insignificant decision, made on a whim, chosen from many other options, for some evil reason.
That level of arrogance and self-righteousness is only exceeded by the ignorance of people pushing these restrictions. I have yet to encounter any person who is against CEs, even in perpetuity, who has ever been involved in one. To them, this is an abstraction that makes for good electioneering, raise some funds for their campaign, and be able to tell their like-minded friends how they should those conservation-minded folks (working farmers and ranchers) where the bear shits in the buckwheat.
That pisses me off to no end. Yeah, this session will be filled with all kinds of stupid bills related to hunting, technology, seasons, new ways to kill more animals, and you name it. Yet, none of those other bills are as important to me, to people I worked with for decades, to wildlife, and to the core of what makes Montana the place it is, as these attacks on the property rights of working landowners.
We all bemoan the loss of character of a place we love. You read about Montana going through that in a big way. I live in one of the cancer cells of that change. That rapid change makes this core of committed conservation-minded landowners who are holding out agains this tide even more critical to retaining what we have, for them, for us, and for wildlife.
When you think about blindly supporting this notion to take away one of the tools needed to solve some complex challenges, I ask why we should take away a tool, CEs, that might be the best solution for them and their goals. And I'd also ask, since when is it anyone else's business to tell them what they can/can't do, for however long of a window, with property they and their family have struggled to build and keep for generations?
Southern Elk
Well-known member
How is it legal for lawmakers to hold up this process? I should be able to go down to the courthouse and file a conservation easement just like I can with any other easement. How has this not been challenged in court?
In this instance, they are holding it up from the side of the buyer (FWP), not the property owner. Thus, it can only be challenged by unelecting the ideologues.
I can assure you that any family considering these options has more attractive possibilities. Now, with elected officials pulling the rug at the last minute, these families who operated in good faith will exercise one of the remaining options, none of which will likely result in any public access.
BuzzH
Well-known member
Live in a shoe box or move to another country if you don't like buying property with a perpetual easement, don't care.
Its a ridiculous notion that people place a high value on individual freedoms and land ownership, then piss all over both when its not to their liking.
They can pound sand.
The only reason you don't think a place is special enough for a perpetual easement, is because its not yours. You might think differently if you worked your ass off to acquire or keep a piece of land and want it to stay the same forever.
My hat is off to those that want to conserve their land for whatever reason they want, for as long as they want.
Last edited:
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
IMO ... Malarkey!
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
And with respect to the location of this particular property, sale to American Prairie is a viable option. Then the ideologues and the organizations they represent would really be upset.
It's nigh on time for another Sportsman Rally in the Rotunda, with the slogan, "Don't buffalo us ... save the CE!"
BuzzH
Well-known member
I would sell to American Prairie long before I agreed to someone else's terms regarding a CE.
