Plum Creek Land for sale....

[steve1 5]

In Montana, Northern Idaho, and is some other states there are millions of acres of land owned by Plum Creek International. Their main office is in Seattle. This land is now for sale.

Long ago, vast holdings of land were given to the railroad to cut ties on by the government. In places every other section of land belongs to Plum Creek. For many years it was used for commercial timber purposes.

When I worked as a logger the land was called Burlington Northern (BN) land. I wish I could say that good logging practices were used on that land. Just the opposite was true. The land was being raped so this company could make a fortune. Little thought was given to regrowth. A zillion miles of road were built. The more road, the cheaper the cost to harvest the timber. Some of this land was stripped of all merchantable timber.

So now, logging is not a priority for this company any more. Real-estate is. The company plans to sell off this land for staggering profits. Some of this land is accessible only by traveling first over Forest Service land. So, the Forest Service had a secret meeting with the Plum Creek folks allowing access.

Obama and several other government officials through a fit over this a year ago, but I have heard little since. As far as I know these land sales are taking place. Has Anybody heard anything more on this.

It seems to me that this land should be handed back to the government if it is not being used for it's original purpose. I don't think it should be sold for a huge profit by this company....

Please set me straight if I am off on any of this....

[TomAiello 26]

Sounds to me like the government ought to sell it off. That would net them some cash to fund a tiny portion of the "stimulus."

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[billvon 3,113]

>Sounds to me like the government ought to sell it off.

Perhaps they could sell it and give preferential rates to an organization like the Nature Conservancy, which allows very limited development with little to no environmental impact. That way you get the benefit of preserving the open space (which will eventually recover from the clearcutting) and the government gets the money.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>Sounds to me like the government ought to sell it off.

Perhaps they could sell it and give preferential rates to an organization like the Nature Conservancy, which allows very limited development with little to no environmental impact. That way you get the benefit of preserving the open space (which will eventually recover from the clearcutting) and the government gets the money.

perhaps they could just sell it and stop interfering with the private market

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Coreece 190]

I don't understand the problem.

The government gave them the land....right?

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[steve1 5]

Quote

I don't understand the problem.

The government gave them the land....right?

...............................................................
Even though Plum Creek technically owned this land it has always been open for public use. If you wanted to hike, camp, hunt, or fish, you could on this land. Again this is millions of acres. Under private ownership this will all change.

I hate to see this land locked up with no tresspassing signs on it. If a person doesn't care about doing things in the outdoors this may not be a loss. If you live in a state where there is no public land you may not realize what a loss this really s.

In Montana and Northern Idaho there are vast areas of public land that are still free to use by the general public. (Forest Service Land, BLM land, state land, school trust land, and the list goes on.) That is why I live in Montana.....

For years now many politicians have had the grand idea that maybe we should sell off all our public land and pay for our national debt. Most citizens are smart enough not to let that happen.

The sale of Plum Creek land is similiar to that. The first thing most people will do, when they buy a chunk of Plum Creek land, is to build a big fence around what they own, and keep everyone out. Rich people seem to buying up Montana. Jane Fonda and her hubby did that here. There are many many other examples of rich folk doing the same thing. I just hate to see more of it.

The sad thing is there may not be a damn thing you can do about it.

Several thousand acres have been bought from Plum Creek for a Nature Conservantcy North of Missoula. That is about the only good thing that is coming out of this in my opinion....

[steve1 5]

One other issue that I didn't say much about, is that the Forest Service made a secret agreement with Plum Creek land owners. It stated that they could travel across Forest Service land to reach their newly bought land by using Forest Service roads. This is what outraged politicians. Apparently the sale of this land is perfectly legal.

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Even though Plum Creek technically owned this land it has always been open for public use. If you wanted to hike, camp, hunt, or fish, you could on this land. Again this is millions of acres. Under private ownership this will all change.

Thanks for the clarification...I would probably feel the same way as you.

Quote

The sad thing is there may not be a damn thing you can do about it.

It may be sad, but I still think the owner should have the right to burn it all down and piss on the ashes if they want.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[steve1 5]

.

It may be sad, but I still think the owner should have the right to burn it all down and piss on the ashes if they want.

I am for landowner rights too, but I don't agree with this. The terms of the agreement was for Plum Creek to use this land for railroad ties. Since they are not using it for that, I think the government ought to take it back. Apparently this was not in the contract, so I guess there is no way to get it back now. Greed wins again!

But on a second note, I understand your sentiment. I own about twenty acres of land, with a creek running through it. My dream has been to build a house on that land next to the creek, when I retire. So I've been working like a dog all these years, paying off this land and saving my money.

This was open farm land with plenty of open space. Then hoardes of people started moving in. My beautiful valley became the fastest growin place in the state. Housing developments were everywhere. They were even building houses right next to my fences to get closer to the creek.

Then all these do gooders got together and decided we want to keep Montana open. That there shouldn't be any houses within 300 feet of any body of water. It just wasn't pretty having a house next to a stream. (It wasn't for safety reasons).

I had a few months before this new law went into affect. I was under the gun. I quickly put in a foundation, well, and septic. I didn't want to build right next to my neighbors like the new law would dictate.

Then enough other land owners got together and said this law was bull shit. People ought to be able to build where they want, if safety isn't an issue. It was put to a vote, and property rights won.

So, I went to a lot of trouble and worry getting all this in. My next step is to get my shack built before zoning goes any further.....

[Gawain 0]

It's not the government's land. It's private property. Would you advocate that the government seize this land (a la Hugo Chavez)?

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[steve1 5]

Quote

It's not the government's land. It's private property. Would you advocate that the government seize this land (a la Hugo Chavez)?

Yes....

[steve1 5]

As far as I know the only land sale that has taken place so far, is the deal for a Nature Conservancy North of Missoula. I don't think even that has been finalized yet.

I think Plum Creek is testing the waters with all this. I don't think the government has given them the green light yet to start selling this land for private ownership. If they can, it would mean zillions of dollars in Plum Creek's pockets. Then there is still the question of how people will access this land if it is surrounded by forest service land.

This is not a small chunk of land. It is like half of the land in most of Northern Idaho and parts of Western Montana.

I think the government needs to look long and hard at the original agreement with Plum Creek. I'm no lawyer, but if Plum Creek has not lived up to their terms of this agreement the government should take this land back. They've already raped this land for whatever timber that was available. I doubt if that was part of the original agreement. Again this land was meant to be used for railroad ties only.

I suspect, that most of this legal maneuvering has already been done on both sides. It will be interesting to see what happens.

Some people say you can't stop progress, but then again, you sure don't have to like it.....

[warpedskydiver 0]

There was some stuff like this that happened in Chicago in the downtown area.

Skyscrapers are now built on what used to be railroad land.

The entire premise of the railroad is that it was deeded to them for the purpose of the railroad.

The problem was is that it was not being used in that capacity.

Breach of contract nullified it.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

It's not the government's land. It's private property. Would you advocate that the government seize this land (a la Hugo Chavez)?

Yes....

And so, what would you say to the 2100 employees of Plum Creek and investors that just saw an asset seized without recourse? That could easily cost half of them their jobs for the long term...sounds like a winning plan you have there! Why don't you take a trip to Venezuela and report back how well Chavez's nationalization is working...production is down, inflation is way up, and he doesn't get it.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

Why don't you take a trip to Venezuela and report back how well Chavez's nationalization is working...production is down, inflation is way up, and he doesn't get it.

You won't have to take a trip to Venezuela to see that.

If the current administration gets there way, we can have that right here. All we need is for Tim Geithner to decide that Plum Creek is "large enough to effect the economy" and he'll go ahead and take control of the company for the "benefit of the nation."

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[steve1 5]

reply]

And so, what would you say to the 2100 employees of Plum Creek and investors that just saw an asset seized without recourse? That could easily cost half of them their jobs for the long term...sounds like a winning plan you have there! Why don't you take a trip to Venezuela and report back how well Chavez's nationalization is working...production is down, inflation is way up, and he doesn't get it.

..........................................
Holy shit! Maybe you should try to take some deep breaths and try to relax a little. I'm not saying we should overthrow the government and kill all the bad people. All I'm saying is that possibly Plum Creek isn't entitled to this land. It should be looked at.....

[Krip 2]

Quote

Quote

Why don't you take a trip to Venezuela and report back how well Chavez's nationalization is working...production is down, inflation is way up, and he doesn't get it.

You won't have to take a trip to Venezuela to see that.

If the current administration gets there way, we can have that right here. All we need is for Tim Geithner to decide that Plum Creek is "large enough to effect the economy" and he'll go ahead and take control of the company for the "benefit of the nation."

OTOH We could make the land into a National park like Glacier

One Jump Wonder

[TomAiello 26]

Quote

We could make the land into a National park like Glacier...

Since National Parks are the only Federal lands I can't BASE jump on legally, I think that would suck in a major way.

-- Tom Aiello

Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com

[steve1 5]

Quote

Quote

It's not the government's land. It's private property. Would you advocate that the government seize this land (a la Hugo Chavez)?

Yes....

......................................................................
Maybe I should have researched Hugo Chavez, before I said yes. I'm not familiar with his history.

This does seem kind of like renting a house to someone. If a renter trashed your house and then tried to sell it wouldn't you be P.O.'d.

Plum Creek raped this land for the timber, now they are trying to sell it. I'd like the government to take a long hard look at all this. Secret agreements with the Forest Service aren't right either.

If some Plum Creek employees lose their jobs, maybe that would be bad. There would still be people needed to manage this land after the government took it back. So, this might not mean a loss in the number of jobs at all.

Giving this land back to the Native Americans sounds like a terrible idea to me. I work on an Indian Reservation. You wouldn't believe the amount of mismanagement, and corruption that exists here.

A good example would be the Bison Range north of Missoula. The Feds. gave it back to the Salish Indian Reservation to manage. A short time later, the Government took it back because of mismanagement. I'm not sure if that was Hugo Chavez style or not. That's what they did.....