Michigan Votes Forum

Discuss issues, ideas and legislation related to the Great Lake State.
Welcome to Michigan Votes Forum Sign in | Join | Help
in Search
Latest post 01-24-2013 12:46 AM by mentor98. 9 replies.
Page 1 of 1 (10 items)
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  • 01-01-2001 12:00 AM

    2011 Senate Bill 248 (Limit state government land ownership )

    Introduced in the Senate on March 9, 2011

    Click here to view bill details.
  • 06-10-2011 10:54 AM In reply to

    Re: 2011 Senate Bill 248 (Limit state government land ownership )

     I totally agree with Senate Bill 248.  We have had too many properties taken off of the tax rolls and too many abuses of land grabs by the DNR.  We need full transparency on how much land the state owns.

    I remember all too well the vile abuse that was conducted by the DNR on Richard Delene's property in the U.P. when he dared to improve the wetlands on his property.  The DNR acted like jackbooted armed thugs and absolutely stole this man's property. 

     

  • 06-13-2011 2:51 PM In reply to

    Re: 2011 Senate Bill 248 (Limit state government land ownership )

     

    Anyone who loves Michigan’s outdoors should unite to fight this private developer greed-based travesty.

    Unique in the nation when spearheaded by MUCC and MOGA (Michigan Oil And Gas Association)  in 1976, The Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund remains a shining star in the struggle to preserve our natural public recreation heritage.

    As my upcoming (July 23, 2011) 200 page book “Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund (MNRTF) 1976-2011” illustrates, the State has been able to preserve such natural resource treasures as the tip of the Keweenaw Peninsula, the Arcadia Property along Lake Michigan, the Headlands property west of Mackinaw City, and dozens of others through the MNRTF (mostly oil and gas revenue State-owned mineral properties). This developer-sided amendment to the Michigan constitution would mean that in order to save another natural area from developers, DNR Director Stokes would be forced to dump some other property over the side.

     

  • 09-18-2011 9:29 PM In reply to

    Re: 2011 Senate Bill 248 (Limit state government land ownership )

     Having personal knowledge of Richard Delene's activities and antics a few years back I'd like to say that the claim of jackbooted tactics by law enforcement is nothing more than a slanted, ill informed fairy tale of what actually happened during that prolonged battle. Mr. Delene ignored and/or broke laws, threatened those in law enforcement who were sworn to uphold the law purely because he was of a different, ill-informed, illogical position.

     

    On another note Mr.Casperson has a more than normal interest in destroying the DNR. He's worked in forestry and continually spared with far better informed people in the DNR over their philosophy of a multi use concept in managing our natural resources. In that previous life it was his desire to clear cut anything and then move on leaving we, the people, to clear up the mess left behind.

    Mr. Casperson totally ignores one irrefutable fact that is the lands  he rails about belong to the people! They are there for the people's use, not some logging cabal intent on only making a profit and then moving on without any government oversight of their abuse of public lands.

  • 10-23-2011 3:18 PM In reply to

    Re: 2011 Senate Bill 248 (Limit state government land ownership )

    Senate Bill 248 (also known as the State Land Cap Bill) was introduced by Sen. Tom Casperson and is being championed in the state House by Rep. Ed McBroom. Local articles from Tim Kobasic and Bill Cook, letters to the editor from MUCC and Heart of the Lakes have all addressed this issue of public land ownership sounding the message and/or agenda for the MDNR. That agenda is to buy more and control more without regard to financial considerations. I personally would like to thank our senator and representative for their strong dedication to improving the quality of life in the U.P. by a balanced approach. To me this bill is nothing more than a smart budget bill stating, "it stops here and now."

    You will hear from those that oppose this bill that if the MDNR is not able to purchase more land, hunting, trapping, fishing, recreation, timber production, you name it, opportunities will be lost or reduced forever. In reality the opposite is true. Most of these organizations and/or individuals that oppose this bill benefit financially (follow the money) from the MDNR and/or have similar agendas.

    This bill simply puts a cap on how much land the state (MDNR) can purchase and retain. Presently the state owns approximately 4.4 million acres and this bill would cap that amount at 4.65 million acres. To put this bill in perspective lets look at just the U.P. The land base in the U.P. is approximately 8.4 million acres. The state of Michigan owns 2,080,252 million acres (25 percent); federal ownership is over 1.9 million acres (23 percent); CFA ownership is 2,172,915.26 acres (26 percent); total acres under public ownership and/or varying degrees of control in the U.P. are 6,153,167 (74 percent). So over 6 million acres (74 percent) is open to the public for hunting and fishing, and varying degrees of recreational opportunities that are regulated and controlled by public agencies. So this leaves approx. 26 percent as the real taxable land base.

    According to the Michigan Department of Treasury neither tax reverted (swamp tax), purchased lands (PILT tax), or CFA taxes have been paid by the state (MDNR) in full in the last three years. It seems that if general funds are not available then taxes due get prorated based on the total due and money available (where do we the people, real taxpayers, get that deal). So in other words the MDNR continues to buy more land but can't pay their liabilities (taxes) for that land.

    Meanwhile our U.P. schools, townships, counties and tax base takes the hit. According to financial sources the U.P. already experiences a minus $1.5 billion GDP and a tax loss some where between $30 million and $89.4 million depending on land use. The GDP per 1,000 acres of forested land equals $41,000 under public ownership, but equals $277,000 if privately owned. Another important fact is that the MDNR remains constant in their attempt to restrict recreational uses and access of these lands to a wide variety of users all in the name of the environment. There have been over 600 land use restrictions adopted over the last nine years in contrast to less than a dozen relaxed or removed restrictions.

    Since the bills introduction there have been 11 exemptions added by the bill sponsors that basically ensure the U.P. remains as it is today with alternatives for purchase just in case the people would want the state to buy that special piece of property for public ownership and/or use.

    In closing, with current financial conditions that exist in the U.P. today, we the people (residents of the U.P.) must consider two options: do we want a tax base that provides opportunity to live here and keep our children here (jobs and the services that most seem to require); or do we eventually becomes tourists ourselves and visit the "Big Wild" on vacation from some other state.

    Rory Mattson

    Ford River

     

    http://www.dailypress.net/page/content.detail/id/533011/Praise-in-order-for-State-Land-Cap-Bill.html?nav=5005

    admin:
    Introduced in the Senate on March 9, 2011

    Click here to view bill details.

  • 12-12-2011 4:54 PM In reply to

    Re: 2011 Senate Bill 248 (Limit state government land ownership )

     Excellent bill that needs to move forward and pass.  Michigan does not need to be like Utah where the government owns the majority of the land.  Let the citizens of the U.S. purchase this unused land and it will provide a new source of revenue and then the liberals will enough money to use for their entitlements..........for a short period of time.

     

  • 12-12-2011 6:13 PM In reply to

    • gypsy
    • Top 10 Contributor
    • Joined on 03-19-2009

    Re: 2011 Senate Bill 248 (Limit state government land ownership )

    This is a bad bill, and should be defeated. Private interest will decimate the wild lands of the UP, as they did before.

  • 01-26-2012 3:14 PM In reply to

    Re: 2011 Senate Bill 248 (Limit state government land ownership )

     This is not a Bad bill it is muche worse than that. I do not want decreased outdoor opportunities on public land I would like to see the opportunities increase. This is especially true in Souther Lower Michigan. Big money buys large tracts and eliminates access.

  • 09-15-2012 11:44 AM In reply to

    Re: 2011 Senate Bill 248 (Limit state government land ownership )

    I think being able to limit the ownership of land is so important to happen. We have to take control of this and it will pay off in the long run. Great idea on this. printing services 4 businesses
  • 01-24-2013 12:46 AM In reply to

    Re: 2011 Senate Bill 248 (Limit state government land ownership )

    Other states, such as Iowa and Minnesota, are also considering changing their policies concerning state land ownership Used Ssangyong Rexton
Page 1 of 1 (10 items)
Powered by Community Server (Commercial Edition), by Telligent Systems