I sent you a PM, can you tell me about the place in Meeker.?
Just thinking about it last night, the place you have inside OKC limits might be the best one to bring in some dollars. There's bowhunters in OKC that would probably pay good money to find a spot close to home to hunt where rifle hunting isn't allowed. They might get lucky and find something really big on it since it's in town.
To amplify this statement, this is a news article from today. I understand that the Person of Interest has a bad background, but it's also not the first time something like this has happened, and it won't be the last I'm sure.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101112/ap_on_re_us/us_wildlife_officer_slain
I don't think this is a fair assumption.
For starters, if you have the kind of money that allows you to pay 1-2mil on property, screw your wanting to get it back out of your average hunter, even if he does live in the city. If you have that much, yet can't pay the land taxes, I'll be happily entrenched at the court house watching the auction when you lose it due to financial irresponsibility.
This kind of logic is what is screwing Table Rock Lake up in MO. Everyone wanted a lake side house, so they built them in the '60's and '70s. Now the property assessment is ridiculous due to the fact that it's got a view, even though the septic drains right into the lake and most of it is on child-unfriendly steep slopes or bluffs. The property taxes become ridiculously high, and now there is a government assistance option for people that "can't afford" to pay their property tax.
FWIW, I also don't really complain about how taxation on property works anyway. For the 86 acres that I own, I paid $41.25 this year. My land is absolutely worthless. Solid rock, grown up with cedar trees, the occasional oaks, and a few remaining sycamores in the creek bottom, all out of sheer damn stubbornness. The creek, that my Grandpa caught fish in when he was a kid, doesn't run because the landowner South of me owns the spring that used to feed it, and has a nice 30' deep pond about 100yds long. x 75yds wide which shut off the spring flow. There might be a few spots with 4-5 inches of soil, but they're few and far between(on 86 acres mind you). If I poured a concrete pad, the average property improvement tax add for that is +$500 though. . .
$31.78 of that $41.25 went to the school district, 77% of my taxes. I don't know how it figures on everyone else's, especially anyone with good property, but if it's the same as mine I don't know why any school district could be hurting. Of the other $9 and change, only .29 goes to the state. That's 0.7% of my tax money going to politicians and state debt/expenditures. I just can't find anything to complain about there. The rest is Library, Health Department, Handicapped, Senior Citizens Services Fund, my local Road District, the Hospital, the Ambulance, and the Fire Department. I'll survive if it doesn't get to those places. I have no choice in the matter anyway.
So, that all being said, and useless to your argument, I still wouldn't have any problem letting anyone that wanted to try and hunt on it do so. For free no less. I guess that's just the kind of non-capitalist a-hole I am, that I would dare say my expenditures are my fault and my responsibility, and I won't place them on others heads. Especially when it's for something that gets people off their butts and into the outdoors.
Really I'd just like for the Missouri Conservation Department to keep issuing 9+ tickets per person until they figure out they're in the hole on deer. Especially since they changed the law to where I can't buy an in-state tag even though I'm a landowner, and now it's $275 for me
.
My daughter may someday be in your wife's class and you couldnt even give first dibs to a fellow parishoner?
Sad panda.
Sad panda.
To amplify this statement, this is a news article from today. I understand that the Person of Interest has a bad background, but it's also not the first time something like this has happened, and it won't be the last I'm sure.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101112/ap_on_re_us/us_wildlife_officer_slain
I don't think this is a fair assumption.
For starters, if you have the kind of money that allows you to pay 1-2mil on property, screw your wanting to get it back out of your average hunter, even if he does live in the city. If you have that much, yet can't pay the land taxes, I'll be happily entrenched at the court house watching the auction when you lose it due to financial irresponsibility. This kind of logic is what is screwing Table Rock Lake up in MO. Everyone wanted a lake side house, so they built them in the '60's and '70s. Now the property assessment is ridiculous due to the fact that it's got a view, even though the septic drains right into the lake and most of it is on child-unfriendly steep slopes or bluffs. The property taxes become ridiculously high, and now there is a government assistance option for people that "can't afford" to pay their property tax.
FWIW, I also don't really complain about how taxation on property works anyway. For the 86 acres that I own, I paid $41.25 this year. My land is absolutely worthless. Solid rock, grown up with cedar trees, the occasional oaks, and a few remaining sycamores in the creek bottom, all out of sheer damn stubbornness. The creek, that my Grandpa caught fish in when he was a kid, doesn't run because the landowner South of me owns the spring that used to feed it, and has a nice 30' deep pond about 100yds long. x 75yds wide which shut off the spring flow. There might be a few spots with 4-5 inches of soil, but they're few and far between(on 86 acres mind you). If I poured a concrete pad, the average property improvement tax add for that is +$500 though. . .
$31.78 of that $41.25 went to the school district, 77% of my taxes. I don't know how it figures on everyone else's, especially anyone with good property, but if it's the same as mine I don't know why any school district could be hurting. Of the other $9 and change, only .29 goes to the state. That's 0.7% of my tax money going to politicians and state debt/expenditures. I just can't find anything to complain about there. The rest is Library, Health Department, Handicapped, Senior Citizens Services Fund, my local Road District, the Hospital, the Ambulance, and the Fire Department. I'll survive if it doesn't get to those places. I have no choice in the matter anyway.
So, that all being said, and useless to your argument, I still wouldn't have any problem letting anyone that wanted to try and hunt on it do so. For free no less. I guess that's just the kind of non-capitalist a-hole I am, that I would dare say my expenditures are my fault and my responsibility, and I won't place them on others heads. Especially when it's for something that gets people off their butts and into the outdoors.
Really I'd just like for the Missouri Conservation Department to keep issuing 9+ tickets per person until they figure out they're in the hole on deer. Especially since they changed the law to where I can't buy an in-state tag even though I'm a landowner, and now it's $275 for me
I understand your point about not being able to afford quantities of land you buy. Hell, I'm of the opinion that if you spend more than you can afford, you, at no time should you get gov't assistance. Like all the dipsh*ts in the housing market are getting not in Cali.
That being said, the people that can afford to buy and properly maintain (pay property taxes, etc.) are one of two things: 1)Trust Fund Babies and have inherited tons of money and are investing it into real estate. 2) They are self made millionaires or wise with their money and buy land as an investment. People generally don't get wealthy because they have made bad investment choices either. I find it laughable that you think because someone can affort to pay $1-$2 million on some land that they don't need to recoup some monies on their investment because they should be able to afford it with out charging hunting fees for a lease. Absolutely, they should be able to afford it without charging hunters to hunt and I'm sure most of them can. But, IMO, you'd be foolish to not charge. Charging hunters to hunt your land is just a small amount of money to the rich land owner but that's why they are wealthy, because they are finding ways to save (earn) money everywhere they can. Whether you or I, the average "joe", likes it, that's reality.
And as far as your comment about school districts hurting. Generally speaking, 70%-80% of all the money that school districts recieve go to the salaries, benefits and retirement of the teachers. I know I just ruffled some feathers with this comment but it is what it is. Dont get me wrong, I think most teachers (except most of California) are paid to little with the responsibility they have of educating our kids.
WMD, what are you even talking about? lol. I'm just going for lease rates, they aren't even sure they want to lease it out...I think they're just curious for right now
Well, I can tell you from experience what a lot of people invest in land do it for, especially the ones with more money to invest on large tracts of property. All you have to do is own a lot of land, and a few farm animals, and it becomes a nice big tax write-off. At least, that's what all the rich "farmers" I know do it for.
One of them is a doctor who barely knows anything about farming, and has a foreman who runs the show. Another used to be an inspector in the polyethylene field, and he made plenty of money doing so. The third made his on chain restaurants. There's plenty past those few, and I'm just talking in 1 small county.
I'm not arguing that you shouldn't be able to be rich and have land, either.
I still don't think, after paying megabucks and taking "losses", charging hunters for a natural resource is anything other than simple greed. Much like people that buy land with navigable water trying to charge people that want to boat, canoe, or kayak through it, or fencing across it entirely. It's not legally right to do so, yet people insist on doing it until they get caught, then turn around and do it again.
As stated earlier, loss of places to game bird hunt is kind of ridiculous. All animals tend to return to places they've been before. Aside from that, they will find places where they know hunters are not around. My Grandpa has 10-12 bucks a year proving this, primarily during hunting season. No one asks him to hunt, so the property doesn't get hunted, and deer stay there.
One of them is a doctor who barely knows anything about farming, and has a foreman who runs the show. Another used to be an inspector in the polyethylene field, and he made plenty of money doing so. The third made his on chain restaurants. There's plenty past those few, and I'm just talking in 1 small county.
I'm not arguing that you shouldn't be able to be rich and have land, either.
I still don't think, after paying megabucks and taking "losses", charging hunters for a natural resource is anything other than simple greed. Much like people that buy land with navigable water trying to charge people that want to boat, canoe, or kayak through it, or fencing across it entirely. It's not legally right to do so, yet people insist on doing it until they get caught, then turn around and do it again.
As stated earlier, loss of places to game bird hunt is kind of ridiculous. All animals tend to return to places they've been before. Aside from that, they will find places where they know hunters are not around. My Grandpa has 10-12 bucks a year proving this, primarily during hunting season. No one asks him to hunt, so the property doesn't get hunted, and deer stay there.
