BuzzH
Well-known member
Why do I get the feeling their, and your reality/choice, is linked to $$$$$$$$$$$$$$?
Stafford Ferry CE
- Thread starter BigHornRam
- Start date
Addicting
Well-known member
You have no idea what my experience or background is. You are being a blowhard and making assumptions. This kind of response isn’t trying to find a solution. It just makes folks dig in their heels in spite.
Addicting
Well-known member
Your right should end when you die or shortly there after.
If you did your job raising and educating they will want to continue it.
To me, demanding that of them is selfish on your part. Giving them the option of what to do that is best for the family is a legacy.
Addicting
Well-known member
Absolutely nothing to do with that. You want to try any more assumptions?
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Let's backup. This private property landowner has already decided on a solution, which is a Conservation Easement through FWP.
That statement leads one to conclude that you still do not recognize the private property right of the conservation easement.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 2,686
Can you lay out an argument against it?
There are termed leases already. Whats wrong with more options by consenting parties
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
To me that is malarkey. The legacy is that I have worked, earned, and perpetuated the right to make such demands regarding that property.
It would be selfish for them to do otherwise, especially if it were for the short sighted worship of mammon.
Respectfully, I disagree with your attitude. At this juncture it seems that you have no such property worth protecting and moreover cannot even relate to my attitude about wild places and Montana natural landscapes worth perpetuating.
rogerthat
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2015
- Messages
- 2,959
I’m glad your expressing your pie in the sky opinion but this doesn’t jive with long established us property right law. I wanted to be an nba player. I’m still salty that I only grew to 5’6” with a 22” vertical leap. But that’s just how it is.
Andrew Carnegie disinherited his offspring by funding the construction and running of 2500 libraries across the nation. It was his property to do with as he wished. His offspring would have been significantly wealthier if he hadn't done that. Should future generations be able to decide what the current holder of wealth can and cannot do with their money?
Addicting
Well-known member
You have no idea what I have, had, or what I’m pursuing the future. You’re making assumptions about a lot of things in this post.
Addicting
Well-known member
Money is not a property right that forces planning decisions on generations unborn for legal eternity.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
You are correct; I am and unabashedly offer no apologies at this point, since as of yet you offer very little to assume otherwise.
Merely one clarifying question: Do you deny the right of this landowner of the property involved to enter into a conservation easement for perpetuity?
Addicting
Well-known member
Where do you record the restrictions on the deed how money can be spent?My parents, financial planner and accountant would disagree, my friend.
For everyone jumping on the bandwagon. I’m not against conservation easements. I am against perpetual easements.
Your family tree could be all but gone and completely forgotten. Yet you all seem to think your will should still be imposed indefinitely.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 2,686
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Untrue. With regard to financial planning and especially regarding conservation easements, it's completely false. Just ask Ted Turner!
Addicting
Well-known member
At the expense of other adjacent and future landowners in perpetuity? Yes.
In 647 years from now the world will look very different. They should get a say in how it looks.
In the will. And on his deathbed, Dad's last words ever spoken were "don't sell the guns." So now I'm stuck with a safe full of guns that I don't use but if I get rid of them, then I get the shit haunted out of me.
This is how property rights work. If you sell the land, you've denied your offspring their right. If you develop that land, same thing. The ownership of property doesn't mean future generations get to decide how you engage in business. If we accept that the other uses that would eliminate the land entirely from future family ownership is a right of the current property owner, then the logic behind perpetual easements follows similarly.
If future generations don't have the right to demand how Andrew Carnegie spent his money, then why would they have any input on what he did with land he owned? Land is an asset. Just like cash. What you do with your assets are your business. If the state is a partner becaue the citizens of that state find value in the conservation of working agricultural lands, then that is exactly what our government is set up to do - represent the will of the people in making decisions relative to issues within their constitutional scope. It's then up to the individual landowner to make the decision if that is right for them.
If you don't like perpetual easements, don't get one. Denying that tool to those who do want that tool denies the rights of landowners to make the decisions they feel are best for their land.
Addicting
Well-known member
How exactly? Same question as I post for Lamb?
BuzzH
Well-known member
Absolutely and rightfully so. I'm a strong advocate for private property rights, including but not limited to perpetual easements.
I'm not inclined to give a shit what someone else thinks I should do with MY property.
