WOW WYOMING LAND GRAB

[BuzzH]

I see why they keep the land they have, but don’t think that they should raise taxes to then invest in more land to manage the same way and call it an “income” source. But if WY folks are OK with it then so be it.

They don't have to raise taxes to invest in land...

 

[VikingsGuy]

The government meddles in markets and keeps them from being anything close to "free markets"...every single day.

Not saying otherwise - just questioning if WY should be raising $500MM in tax dollars to speculate in real estate. Or given their heavy existing investment in real estate maybe they should diversify.

 

[VikingsGuy]

They don't have to raise taxes to invest in land...

The money comes from somewhere. And money is fungible so don’t really care how they raise it. It’s real estate and energy speculation either way.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

If this is the case, then you and I have very different definitions of business.

I’m referring to the Colorado statutory definition.

 

[VikingsGuy]

I’m referring to the Colorado statutory definition.

I prefer the business school one

 

[Deleted member 28227]

The money comes from somewhere. And money is fungible so don’t really care how they raise it. It’s real estate and energy speculation either way.

Has land ever been a long term poor investment? Like on the scale of centuries not decades?

 

[VikingsGuy]

Has land ever been a long term poor investment? Like on the scale of centuries not decades?

Depends on what land over what time period and what the alternatives are. Plus centuries is not a good time window for investing criteria. Lots of folks who invested in land along the early Route 66 didn’t fair so well over a 80 year window when the interstate system passed them by.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I prefer the business school one

In CO it’s a gov agency that generates revenue and receives less an 10% of its funding from the state.

But this conversation is a bit silly because it’s like comparing the nature conservancy to Apple.

The goal of the state is to hold certain assets in public trust and generate what it can from those assets. The WY can’t buy condos in NYC.

 

[BuzzH]

The money comes from somewhere. And money is fungible so don’t really care how they raise it. It’s real estate and energy speculation either way.

They don't need to raise the money...we already have it.

Speculation in the stock market any different?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Depends on what land over what time period and what the alternatives are. Plus centuries is not a good time window for investing criteria. Lots of folks who invested in land along the early Route 66 didn’t fair so well over a 80 year window when the interstate system passed them by.

And then did when Oil shale happened.

States last longer than individuals which is my point.

I wonder what Seward would have to say about your perspective

 

[VikingsGuy]

In CO it’s a gov agency that generates revenue and receives less an 10% of its funding from the state.

But this conversation is a bit silly because it’s like comparing the nature conservancy to Apple.

The goal of the state is to hold certain assets in public trust and generate what it can from those assets. The WY can’t buy condos in NYC.

I agree but I go further and say it shouldn’t raise an additional half a billion dollars to fund real estate speculation when already heavily exposed to that asset class already.

 

[VikingsGuy]

And then did when Oil shale happened.

States last long than individuals which is my point.

Lots of old 66 aren’t in shale country and still worthless. My point is government shouldn’t be speculatively investing its people money under a vague notion “that they aren’t making any more dirt”.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I agree but I go further and say it shouldn’t raise an additional half a billion dollars to fund real estate speculation when already heavily exposed to that asset class already.

Yet that is the mandate of the Nature conservancy and what they will do year after year. Their goal isn’t to make money.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Lots of old 66 aren’t in shale country and still worthless. My point is government shouldn’t be speculatively investing its people money under a vague notion “that they aren’t making any more dirt”.

What about for the vague notion of preserving land for those in the womb of time?

 

[BuzzH]

Lots of old 66 aren’t in shale country and still worthless. My point is government shouldn’t be speculatively investing its people money under a vague notion “that they aren’t making any more dirt”.

I don't know...investing the market is pretty darn speculative, and we can continue to do both.

The market goes to crap, that money just evaporates. You can have a revenue stream from land into perpetuity, timber, mining, grazing, maybe charging NR's from the twin cities a couple hundred a year to access our State lands...who knows.

 

[BigHornRam]

I don't know...investing the market is pretty darn speculative, and we can continue to do both.

The market goes to crap, that money just evaporates. You can have a revenue stream from land into perpetuity, timber, mining, grazing, maybe charging NR's from the twin cities a couple hundred a year to access our State lands...who knows.

We elect Bernie and it will be "hold my beer Venezuela". Stocks and paper currency will make good toilet paper.

 

[VikingsGuy]

In CO it’s a gov agency that generates revenue and receives less an 10% of its funding from the state.

But this conversation is a bit silly because it’s like comparing the nature conservancy to Apple.

The goal of the state is to hold certain assets in public trust and generate what it can from those assets. The WY can’t buy condos in NYC.

Comparing a non-profit charitable organization and phone company are not a great comparison to this thread.

Not saying govt. can't hold land in trust - saying in a state where over 55% of land is public shouldn't be using upwards of 10% of its annual budget to buy more land as an investment vehicle. How about letting the people of WY invest their own money - I find a free people are better at creating future value than govt bureaucracies.

 

[SAJ-99]

I don’t think State land trusts don’t generate enough revenue in any state to fully fund the schools. That is why there are RE taxes. In the end, WY’s job is to make the people of WY happy. We can debate how speculative this is, but it really depends on the purchase price.

 

[VikingsGuy]

What about for the vague notion of preserving land for those in the womb of time?

I think 55% public lands in the womb is plenty.

 

[VikingsGuy]

They don't need to raise the money...we already have it.

Speculation in the stock market any different?

Then I vote for a tax refund to the working people of WY.

It's not about where they speculate, its about raising funds to speculate.