Good Bad or Govt ?

[Bill]

*****   Health Warning - some of my posts do tend to run on  *****t

Right away I thought it was a good idea - now I'm not sure. Maybe others could share some wisdom or experience to help me figure out whether this is Good Bad or Govt.

I heard a story on the radio this AM while shaving and didn't get all the facts and today being a bit busier I couldn't check it out till now.

Appears the US Dept Agriculture ( Forest Service ) is gonna sell 300,000 acres to raise $ 800,000,000 for rural schools. Heck I'm set to go. More woodlands gonna be managed by the folks here making more wages and probably lowering ( more on the store shelves ? ) the cost of lumber here in US of A. Profits ( proceeds to go to rural schools  - cool ) .

Oops - did they say proceeds to rural schools. Having been in Govt for awhile I choked. Only time the diner covers your steak with A-1 is when the steaks no good - same - even more so with Govt. OK lets not be jumping to conclusions - maybe there isn't a skunk in the wood pile.

What's the cost of an acre of ( untouched in years ) forest worth ?
Is it more than $ 2,700 ?  ( $800,000,000 divided by 300,000 acres )
Are they selling it in 5 or 10 acre lots for little guys ?
Or are they selling it in  250-1000-5000-10,000 acre lots for the BIG developers ?
Isn't a lot near Yellowstone worth many times what a lot outside of Cheyenne is ?
Can I go down to US D A and put down $ 5400 for two acres in the Grand Tetons ?

So this rural school thing - is it a smoke screen to hide a giveaway ?
What do the schools do next year - sell another 300,000 acres + 100,000 more for inflation ?  Schools, like any other Govt, once its in the budget gotta keep it.
How hard was it to get this land set aside or is it time to cut 'er loose ?

Does this reduce the cost of lumber ?
Does this open up land for us to cut on ?

My first reaction was great - then no - now undecided. ( If it helps small business I'd be inclined to go for it but if for fat cats  .  .  .  well let them get their money from someplace else rather than the public trust . )

Bottom line - does this help FF members or does it help BIG business/developers?
or both ?
Am I missing something here ?

FWIW - I did a search on Google to get info for this using "national forest" "for sale" "today"  all on the same search/line

BTW - there's a comment period - ends March 30 I believe though letters one way or the other to your elected official in Washington may yet carry the day.

Jeff - I apologize if this is improper but there is an email address to comment below - please delete any or all of this if its out of line

SRS_Land_Sales@fs.fed.us

[Ron Wenrich]

Are you talking about selling the land or just the timber?  If its just the timber, then the value depends on what's on it. 

We had a guy give 52 acres to the state of PA a number of years ago.  There was some very nice cherry, with lots of veneer.  Assessed value was over $1million.   It was made into a park.

If you are looking at a stumpage value of around $400, then you only have to average about 7 Mbf/acre.  That's a little high for a hardwood thinning, but might be way to low for a softwood thinning.  Depends where you're at.

As for lumber prices, they rise and fall more on demand than anything else.  If housing starts are off, then demand is low and mills cut production to compensate.  You can only produce so much lumber at a loss.

If starts are high, then mills push as much through as possible, raising prices and imports. 

If they sold the land, then prices would probably be a lot higher, and the impact of the timber wouldn't be as high.  It also fragments forests and takes land out of production.

[Bibbyman]

I'm pretty sure he's talking about land.  I've read about from a couple of sources.  Our local paper had an article about land being sold in our county.  I can't remember the numbers but it amounted to about 2,000 acres out of 30,000 that was "owned" by the Federal government.   (That's just in our county alone!  There are many counties – especially in southern Missouri that is almost totally government land.) 

This acreage was small plots of old farm land that were not connected to the larger plots and not easily accessible – thus hard to use, control and maintain.

I think it's a great idea!  Get this land off of welfare and back into the tax base.  I think they should sell 30,000 acres and keep maybe 2,000.

[Bill]

Here's another piece - at first it looks like smaller parcel(s) in some places but I'm still not sure its a fair price for land being sold.  For example land ( Ron - it is the land ) in Calif should be high dollar from what I know but if its big lots the little guy can't touch the total price. South Carolina could be natl forest right next to the coast ( think vacation homes ), in the Appalachian Mtns, or some where in between. So maybe its a mix . . .

USFS Parcel Acreages by State - off the USFS site

State
Acres

Alabama
2,822

Alaska
97

Arizona
1,022

Arkansas
3,624

California
75,959

Colorado
23,248

Florida
973

Georgia
4,523

Idaho
26,045

Illinois
206

Indiana
878

Kentucky
4,540

Louisiana
3,895

Michigan
5,677

Minnesota
2,644

Mississippi
7,479

Missouri
21,712

Montana
12,039

Nebraska
883

Nevada
1,991

New Mexico
7,390

North Carolina
9,833

Ohio
419

Oklahoma
3,541

Oregon
11,270

South Carolina
4,656

South Dakota
15,106

Tennessee
2,996

Texas
4,565

Utah
5,894

Virginia
5,720

Washington
7,425

West Virginia
4,827

Wisconsin
80

Wyoming
17,532

[Ron Wenrich]

You notice that there isn't any PA land on that list?  USFS land in PA is in pretty high productivity and grows some pretty good cherry.  I wonder if its a coincidence that no good productivity lands are being sold. 

It cold be that the government is dumping some land it doesn't need, then tying it up in a pretty bow.  Its for education.

I also think that the government makes PILT payments.  PILT = Payment in lieu of taxes.  I know state agencies do this to make up for the tax drain. 

In 2005, the Dept of Interior paid over $226 million.  The USFS also distributes 25% of the income and pays a  PILT.  Not exactly a freeloader.

[solodan]

When I looked at the potential parcels near me, I immediately realized that it only made sense to get rid of these parcels. These parcels are all isolated resources, which are probably not managed at all due to the fact that they are landlocked by private land. These parcels are a few miles outside the regular boarders of the forest. One piece of land in particular is about one mile from my place, well around here property has been going for about $150k/acre  for raw land. What would the Forest Service ask for a 40 acre parcel? my guess is that they will use this piece for leverage to aquire other pieces of land more valuable to them within the forest boundaries, and make a land trade. Something that is very common out here with the big lumber companies.

You notice that there isn't any PA land on that list?

My guess is that  no areas of the Allegheny fit into the unmanageable criteria, and though the Alleghany is not a small forest, it is the only one in the state.

[Bibbyman]

I also think that the government makes PILT payments.  PILT = Payment in lieu of taxes.  I know state agencies do this to make up for the tax drain. 

And where does the government get it's money?   

[Bill]

Solodan

My Calif geography isn't as good as it could be . I see CA is in for close to 76,000 acres. One of the posts said the individual parcels are described at the local USFS office. Would you be able to tell us what's on one of the parcels they have up for sale ? I'll do some looking also once I log off FF.

If this would benefit the little guy I'm OK with it - kinda like a latter day Oklahoma land rush. I am just real skeptical when the Govt comes up and says "I'm here to help" - I need to see that they aren't blowing smoke so big paper companies or developers aren't getting a handout at my/our expense - that average price of 2700 per acre has me second guessing myself.

Sounds like so far there are just reasons to see it through - nothing negative that we see .  .  .

[Tom]

I agree Bibby.  That pocket to pocket, goody goody two shoes approach doesn't float.   What they have to do is raise taxes to be able to pay for the loss of taxes.  :-\

You don't actually think that the bureaucracy would curtail spending do You?    \

I know you are serious, Ron.  But I can't help but have some fun with this.  :D

[Bill]

Solodan

A little further info -

There's five parcels about 300 acres in Tulare county - Sequoia NF - just NW of Sequoia Natl Park on the road looping through the NF and NP from Visalia to Fresno. For those of us outside CA this would be the road out of one of the large ( I think you could drive through one of the trees ) Sequoia groves in Sequoia Natl Park. Is there some way to estimate its value to a logger and to a developer ?

Genl Info -

I also got to read the enabling legislation. Pretty straightforward. Secty of Agriculture can chose whatever parcels of land to sell till 2011 or till receiving proceeds of $ 800,000,000 at "market value" which it sounds like he has some control over. He can sell straightaway to state/local govts, Indians or nonprofits with just an agreed appraisal. Or if none of them are interested he can sell to genl public "upon advertising in a local paper ". May just be an opportunity for some FF members here  ???.  A little homework and maybe you may want to bid on land right out your back door - though some parcels were larger ~ 700 acres there were some in the 1 to 20 acre size.

Anyone for a cabin in the forest  ;D   ?

[SPIKER]

hey all
dang brand new computer keeps messing up I posted earlier about if there is a link to the site that shows WHERE these parcels ar elocated, OHIO has 400+ acres but where in state?  do we ahve to email them for the info?

thanks mark

[Ron Wenrich]

Bibby

The government gets their money the same place it does to pay teachers, judges, police, build roads, etc.  Their only problem is they spend more than they take in.   ;)

[Bill]

Some general info

The new land sale is still not a law yet - they're ending a public comment period for the extension/renewal of the last land sale law.

The land maybe far from any USFS road or be on a main highway. There may also be a right of way or easement on the deed.

There are large tracts and small tracts.

Information including some maps can be found on the US Forest Service website 

[solodan]

Hey Bill,

I checked out the parcels you were talking about in the Sequoia N.F.

Once again, like everything I have seen here, the parcels are not within the forest boundaries, and are probably not managed. Selling them off only makes sense. The  problem with California is the steep geography and if the map says unnamed road, then my guess would be that the road is non existent. Actually lots of the roads that show up on these maps that are named don't even exist. Subdividing property in California has become a real problem due to our fire codes. to break off any piece of land you must have two access ways to the property at 21 feet wide. These smaller parcels they are selling are probably only good for someone to develop one house, as I am sure they are all zoned AE37. This being 37 acre minimum size parcels. If they are in fact dividable they will go for big bucks. I just saw an 82 acre parcel on the GSA website near Truckee CA. starting bid, $3,000,000. 

I think that if these parcels are unmanaged and unproductive then the Feds should sell them off. My only complaint would be that in a state like California, we would never see the money. A state with 35 million people, but living in 10% of the geography, always poses problems for those of us outside the handful of populated areas. What are they going to consider a rural school? A school in an  LA suburb? or a one room school house with 10 students in my county where they sold the land? If the local economy loses out from the sale, well then it makes me angry. So if they want to put the money in the local school economy, like the Act proposes, then that is what needs to happen. The Act was setup to help benefit communities that have lost income due to the lack of federal timber sales. I would really hate to see the liberals in LA,  reap the benefits, when they infact helped take the logging away in the first place. >:(