Whose Property Right is it?

[BigHornRam]

Scenario 2 for BF.

Let's say I buy the property in question and plan to build a PRIVATE campground, parking lot, and boat launch, with all the amenities that FWP had plans for. I'm also planning on allowing outfitted bird and bowhunts on the property (remember Tom Brokaws flap?) The locals use whatever means available to them (zoning, permiting, legal, ect) to derail my plans for my property. Are the locals overstepping their rights and infringing on MY property rights in this case? Or is it all part of the process?

 

[BigHornRam]

I'm still looking for the breakdown on the funding for Access Montana, Fin. No help on the FWP Site. Is revenue from the sales of OSL's used to help fund this? That would be a little ironic, wouldn't it?

 

[Nemont]

I'm still looking for the breakdown on the funding for Access Montana, Fin. No help on the FWP Site. Is revenue from the sales of OSL's used to help fund this? That would be a little ironic, wouldn't it?

By BRETT FRENCH
Of The Gazette Staff
Bill Meinhardt gets a bit teary-eyed talking about the property he bought 50 years ago out of what he jokingly called "foolishness."


Funding comes from Access Montana, which collected $10 million in general fund money in the last legislative session to secure public access in the state.

Nemont

 

[MattK]

Nemont- BHR's didn't major in reading comprehension!!! I blame it all on his parents or those damn liberal professors and teachers.

 

[BigHornRam]

Really the only beef that the adjacent landowners should have reguarding this transaction is the source of funding.......Funding comes from Access Montana, which collected $10 million in general fund money in the last legislative session to secure public access in the state. Whether you agree or disagree with their opinions, they do have a say in how this public money is spent.

I already highlighted that point Nemont. Fin said it came from license dollars. Do license dollars go into the general fund Nemont and Matt? I'm not sure if they do or not. Maybe Fin can explain it?

 

[JoseCuervo]

I already highlighted that point Nemont. Fin said it came from license dollars. Do license dollars go into the general fund Nemont and Matt? I'm not sure if they do or not. Maybe Fin can explain it?

BigWhore,

Why do you care?

If they do, what would your action be?

If they don't, what would your action be?

Which answer would cause you to suddenly swing to support Montana FWP finding access for hunters and fisherguys?

 

[BigHornRam]

Really the only beef that the adjacent landowners should have reguarding this transaction is the source of funding.......Funding comes from Access Montana, which collected $10 million in general fund money in the last legislative session to secure public access in the state. Whether you agree or disagree with their opinions, they do have a say in how this public money is spent.

I already highlighted that point Nemont. Fin said it came from license dollars. "BTW, most of Access Montana money is from hunter and angler license dollars. A very small part of every license purchase goes to that fund, which personally, I am more than glad to be funding."
Do license dollars go into the general fund Nemont and Matt? I'm not sure if they do or not. Maybe Fin can explain it?

 

[BigHornRam]

Speaking of the Brokaw flap, BF. Didn't Tom oppose outfitted hunting on the property adjacent to his for safety reasons? I support Tom's right to voice his opinion and right to pursue what ever legal recourse was available to him, even if I think his opinion and motives were bull shit. What was your take on that property rights case? What ever became of it?

 

[BigHornRam]

If they do, what would your action be? That hunters and fisherman dollars are being used to purchase access (good thing even if OSL dollars are being used)

If they don't, what would your action be? That welfare dollars are being used to purchase access (bad thing.......at least if you are consistant)

 

[Nemont]

License dollars do not go into the general fund. Access Montana is funded via general fund dollars, Habitat Montana is funded by license dollars. Two different programs.

Nemont

 

[Nemont]

BHR,

Access is a bad thing if funded by "welfare dollars"? Please translate for me.

Nemont

 

[BigHornRam]

BHR,

Access is a bad thing if funded by "welfare dollars"? Please translate for me.

Nemont

Is tatoo removel a bad thing if funded by taxpayer dollars? I say yes.....some people might disagree with me though. Point made?

"Access Montana is funded via general fund dollars" So BF's comment was incorrect......funny no one pointed that out to him.

 

[A-con]

The neighbors may have a “say” in how Montana spends their tax payer dollars, but I don’t see how they have standing to sue ?
Meinhardt wants to sell to the state for a perfectly legitimate use that has already been sanctioned by the state.
No lawyer should take the case, and no judge should agree to hear it.

 

[BigHornRam]

No lawyer should take the case, good one A-con! I'll believe that when I see it. The guy has enough cash, he'll find a willing lawyer. and no judge should agree to hear it. Very possible, and all part of the process.

So is this a case of property rights violation like Big Fin claiming it is? I say NO.

 

[BigHornRam]

"his quiet getaway has riled a hornets' nest of protests from some surrounding homeowners, fearful that in state hands the property would be overrun with trash, slob hunters and teenage keggers."

A couple years ago at a Forest Service campground about 10 miles from my house, a dirtbag from Wyoming poured gas on his girlfriend and lit her on fire. A little bit disturbing. Would I have apprehension if a public campground was proposed next door to my house. I would be lieing if I said no.

Anyone else? Fin? Would you have concerns?

 

[The Hedgehog]

a dirtbag from Wyoming poured gas on his girlfriend and lit her on fire.

How do you know she didn't deserve it?

 

[JoseCuervo]

How do you know she didn't deserve it?

I think his concern was not if she deserved it, but, more likely, if the pouring of gasoline onto the soil and girlfriend would create some sort of environmental risk to his neighboring land.

 

[BigHornRam]

I think his concern was not if she deserved it, but, more likely, if the pouring of gasoline onto the soil and girlfriend would create some sort of environmental risk to his neighboring land.

You sure are commenting a lot on this dead horse Jose.

It was right next to Skalkaho Creek, my concern was for the fish.

 

[Hntnhrd]

Hey A$$ Clown your sick!!!! Funny but sick!!!!

 

[Big Fin]

BHR:

All your example deal with an analogy of a neighbor bitching about someone doing something that represents a changed use of the property, which in most cases, I would say the same thing - if it is an allowed use that you don't like, then buy the friggin' property or keep your mouth shut.

The case I have cited is someone trying to sell, and neighbors sniveling about who he will sell to. What if he decided to let people hunt or fish on the property? Perfectly legal. They gonna bitch about that, also.

Matter is, these people don't own the property, but they want to tell the owner what he can do with it. If that is not an infringement on his rights, then I guess I am clueless as to what represents a property right infringement. Lets agree to disagree.

As far as the Brokaw deal, I am unfortunately too familiar with that case, as the other person involved is one of my clients. I cannot talk about it, for client reasons, but it was not a property right issue.

And as far as "Access Montana" compared to "Habitat Montana," NEMont is right. I was confusing them. Habitat MT is funded with license dollars, not Access Montana. My bad.