|
clmbr121
Apr 20, 2009, 3:41 AM
Post #201 of 217
(6117 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 16, 2005
Posts: 160
|
I don't want to get involved with the debate, but I could use some clarification. Regardless of my feelings one way or the other, Kent, I want to respect your wishes as a land owner. If this has been answered before, earlier in the thread, I apologize, but again, I don't want to make things any worse.
Its clear what routes are closed, but in terms of bouldering, what is the access like? (The Williams/Swain guides don't match up well with Ivan Greene's guide.) Is the Playground area off limits? If it is not off limits, would we still need to access it by rappelling in?
Thanks in advance for the clarification.
|
|
|
|
|
Adk
Apr 23, 2009, 2:58 PM
Post #202 of 217
(5950 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 1085
|
Kent has read this yet not responded. He's read other posts and not responded as well.
What do you say Kent, how about answering clmbr121's question.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Apr 23, 2009, 3:43 PM
Post #203 of 217
(5930 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
He posted the same question on gunks.com, and it was answered there.
GO
|
|
|
|
|
desertwanderer81
Apr 23, 2009, 6:38 PM
Post #204 of 217
(5896 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 5, 2007
Posts: 2272
|
If your goal is to protect your land by restricting access, then this is a very poor plan.
Do you not understand that by closing off this area, that you will only agrivate the situation and convince the Preserve that they need to fight harder through legislation to aquire the land?
Furthermore, what use is a cliff to any land owner? You can't build on or near it. You'd still have access to the land if it were donated. If I were to own land which had a cave or cliff face on it, I'd want to be rid of that section ASAP due to liability issues.
Donate the land, get a nice big tax write off, get rid of your liability, and call it a day.
|
|
|
|
|
Adk
Apr 23, 2009, 8:54 PM
Post #205 of 217
(5864 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 1085
|
cracklover wrote: He posted the same question on gunks.com, and it was answered there. GO
Thank you. It's unfortunate that he cross-posted.
|
|
|
|
|
desertwanderer81
Apr 23, 2009, 9:18 PM
Post #207 of 217
(5852 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 5, 2007
Posts: 2272
|
I've been reading over on the other webpage, and from what I can understand, these zoning laws are not affecting the people who are living in this area.
In fact, these zoning laws, passed by other locals, and not the climbing community, protect the property owners from having their neighbor subdividing their lots and building lots of homes for commercial purposes. Do they want to live in the middle of suburbia or do they want to live in a nice backwoods community?
In fact, these same laws were created EXACTLY because one of the property owners wanted to sell to a developer!! It was the CITIZENS of Gardiner who put a stop to it, not the climbers nor the climbing community nor the preserve.
So as a result we get the following situation. They could donate this property and get a HUGE tax write off. Property which they don't get any value from using. None. There is no value in it for them at all other than a number on a piece of paper. Property which is actually a liability.
Or they could be massive dicks and "stick it to the innocent climbers who are just want to commune with nature and rock".
|
|
|
|
|
tomcat
Apr 24, 2009, 12:38 PM
Post #208 of 217
(5811 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2006
Posts: 325
|
Sounds like a great plan,why don't you buy the land from Kent,donate it and get yourself a huge tax write off.
Is it Ok for me to assume that you realize since the value of the land has been cut by 2/3rds by the zoning,the amount of the "huge tax write off" is too?
Which likely means it's not worth putting any of it into a conservation easement now.
(This post was edited by tomcat on Apr 24, 2009, 12:46 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
desertwanderer81
Apr 24, 2009, 1:31 PM
Post #209 of 217
(5793 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 5, 2007
Posts: 2272
|
tomcat wrote: Sounds like a great plan,why don't you buy the land from Kent,donate it and get yourself a huge tax write off. Is it Ok for me to assume that you realize since the value of the land has been cut by 2/3rds by the zoning,the amount of the "huge tax write off" is too? Which likely means it's not worth putting any of it into a conservation easement now.
If I had that kind of money, or I owned property with those natural features, I would make such a donation.
As for the zoning laws, the only reason why they're pissed is because they were told that they're no longer allowed to put housing subdivisions on them! That's why they're no longer worth as much. THAT is what drops the value of the land. Because it is no longer able to be sold, having the existing homes torn down, and housing tracks put up.
They can keep on using the land exactly as they were before. I am sorry that the land no longer has its inflated commercial value, but that's the way life is. You can't just go turning our nation's natural treasures into suburbia.
Furthermore, it was the PEOPLE of Gardiner who made this resolution. It was their vote. This wasn't the state swooping in from up high to beat on the little man. It was their own neighbors and community members who did it. They did it because they saw the value in continuing their natural treasure and preventing it from being destroyed.
|
|
|
|
|
desertwanderer81
Apr 24, 2009, 1:47 PM
Post #210 of 217
(5789 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 5, 2007
Posts: 2272
|
I should also point out that the 2/3 of the land value being lost is a pretty big exaguration.
Not only is it not quite 2/3, but most of the value that was lost was because the housing market went kerplunk. And the portion of that market that lost the most value? Yup, virgin land with no improvements, because no value has been put into it. Few people at this time are even interested in actually building on this land right now, which is why its value has dropped so much. In the future however is a different story, of course.
So yes, the zoning laws were responsible for lowering the property values, but only 10% or so. The rest of it was the market in our downturned economy or exaguration.
Again I put out that the portion of the land that abuts the cliffs is useless to the property owners. The cliffs and a 100' easement would bring much good will, and a nice tax writeoff for land which so far is only a liability.
|
|
|
|
|
desertwanderer81
Apr 24, 2009, 3:09 PM
Post #212 of 217
(5757 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 5, 2007
Posts: 2272
|
cracklover wrote: desertwanderer81 wrote: If I had that kind of money, or I owned property with those natural features, I would make such a donation. And if pigs had wings they'd fly. GO
lol, I agree. I was only responding to the absurd "Why don't you buy the land and donate it" comment with an equally absurd statement ;)
|
|
|
|
|
Toast_in_the_Machine
Apr 24, 2009, 4:17 PM
Post #213 of 217
(5743 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 12, 2008
Posts: 5208
|
tomcat wrote: Sounds like a great plan,why don't you buy the land from Kent,donate it and get yourself a huge tax write off. Is it Ok for me to assume that you realize since the value of the land has been cut by 2/3rds by the zoning,the amount of the "huge tax write off" is too? Which likely means it's not worth putting any of it into a conservation easement now.
Property is worth what someone will pay for it. To estimate the value of something that is not being sold, there are many techniques. One of the most common is “market value” where a comparable sale is used. For land the most common way is to use either assed value or a recent sales comparison.
If the property has not been re-assed for tax reasons to a lower value, it can be donated at the higher value with no issues. If, however, some of the property goes on sale and is sold it becomes a factor of the property value.
The 2/3rds reduction in property value is based on a comparison of “non-buildable” land in the area to the parts that were re-zoned and now the owners consider it “difficult to non-buildable”. If the land is re-assed at that value then, yes, from a donation value at tax time is significantly less.
However, if some of the land is considered so special and unique that some of the land is purchased at a higher rate than the base “non-buildable” land in the area, then there would be a basis to donate the remaining land at a higher rate. In this specific case, if the city or a third party purchased some of the SP3 land at current assed rate, then the rest of the SP3 land could be donated at a similar rate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tomcat
Apr 24, 2009, 6:09 PM
Post #215 of 217
(5714 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2006
Posts: 325
|
Wow,what a bunch of clueless people,who obviously don't any any land.To get a "write off" is an involved process that starts with a valuation by a licensed valuation firm,an appraiser.Tax assessments have virtually no sway in this,except as they may pertain to adjacent land valuations for reference.Once a value is established,and if the conservation easement is accepted by the governing body,you can get a tax break equal to the dollar valuation in income.So you get roughly one third of the dollar value off your taxes,if you are paying about 33% in income tax and SS,like many self employed successful people.So far the guy's land has been devalued by the zoning down two thirds,and now he should settle for a third of what is left off his taxes?
I'd love to see one of you go through that.
By the way,they are TRACT homes,not track homes.As in built on a tract of land.And while developers build them,and Happigrrl thinks she should be the architectural arbiter,at the end of the day just everyday people buy and live in them.
By all means preserve your ridgeline,just sack up and pay for it.
|
|
|
|
|
Toast_in_the_Machine
Apr 24, 2009, 9:27 PM
Post #216 of 217
(5679 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 12, 2008
Posts: 5208
|
The 2/3rds value lost is an estimate from the current owners of the difference between what it could have been sold for vs. what they think it now might be sold for with 100% of that due to zoning rules.
Without comparable sales or a change in tax valueation, the value of the property has not changed.
My point was if you are looking for maximum deduction either donate now where the current comparable value, as expressed in the assessment is high or seek to sell a small portion of it to property to a willing party.
The value of the SP3 classed property will be set by the market. Selling all of it isn't necessary. If a group "reaches" on the first sale then it protects the value (tax and donation) of the remaining land.
As for tax deductions, they are best associated with the value of the income. The g'ment was going to get their 1/3rd off the top either as cash or land donation.
|
|
|
|
|
desertwanderer81
Apr 28, 2009, 9:13 PM
Post #217 of 217
(5517 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 5, 2007
Posts: 2272
|
tomcat wrote: Wow,what a bunch of clueless people,who obviously don't any any land.To get a "write off" is an involved process that starts with a valuation by a licensed valuation firm,an appraiser.Tax assessments have virtually no sway in this,except as they may pertain to adjacent land valuations for reference.Once a value is established,and if the conservation easement is accepted by the governing body,you can get a tax break equal to the dollar valuation in income.So you get roughly one third of the dollar value off your taxes,if you are paying about 33% in income tax and SS,like many self employed successful people.So far the guy's land has been devalued by the zoning down two thirds,and now he should settle for a third of what is left off his taxes? I'd love to see one of you go through that. By the way,they are TRACT homes,not track homes.As in built on a tract of land.And while developers build them,and Happigrrl thinks she should be the architectural arbiter,at the end of the day just everyday people buy and live in them. By all means preserve your ridgeline,just sack up and pay for it.
Well really, the land is technically either priceless or valueless, depending on how you look at it. The actual cliffs and the area around the cliffs have absolutely no market value. You can't build on them. The house isn't worth less without it. And so on. However to the climbers it would be priceless!
Donating the land would in no way be detrimental to the land owners. They would have as much usage as before with less liability.
As for the land being worth "less" now, it is the same exact land as before. It has just as much usage for the people who live there now. The only thing they can't do is sell their land to some real estate company who would then develop the entire area!
As far as development goes, there is nothing wrong with Tract housing, in and of itself. However there is something wrong with Tract housing being in Wilderness Areas. Otherwise you have uncontrolled urban spread. We don't need that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
