🚀 go-pugleaf

Phil Ronzone (phil@netcom.com) wrote:
: And to speculate on what Yosemite is worth is something only a free 
: marketplace can do, as a government is useless in figuring out "real 
: worth".

And yet you have repeatedly asserted that you know the value of the 
alleged Yosemite subsidy as being tens of billions of dollars and have 
implied that the prices the government has arrived at in its grazing 
program represent fair market value for such use of federal land.  Very 
impressive!  Let's see the math and the basis for the numbers.

: Sigh -- you missed the whole point.

I suppose I did--and still do.

: Grazing lands are NOT subsidized, UNLESS you want to count Yosemite as a
: multi-tens-of-billions-of-$$$ subsidy.

Why?  Let's see the facts and math to back up that assertion.  Note that 
Yosemite belongs to the people of the United States and the United States 
does not have a property tax that would put money into the federal pot or 
the bank accounts of U.S. citizens if the land was developed as you 
suggested.  Now, what's your argument, how did you arrive at your numbers 
and why is the reality of welfare cowboys dependent on accepting your 
assertion that Yosemite National Park is a "multi-tens-of-billions" of 
dollars subsidy to the Sierra Club and other environmental 
organizations?  The U.S. calvary drove out the rancher squatters who once 
illegally occupied the Yosemite Valley long ago.  I see no further 
connection between Yosemite and welfare cowboys.

: No money goes from the Feds to the ranchers.

So what?  The ranchers grazing on federal land are still getting in-kind 
subsidies, also known as welfare.  In fact, back in the '60s, I had a 
neighbor on welfare.  As far as I know, he was not getting cash payments 
from the government, but he was getting food (big containers of peanut 
butter, flour, sugar, butter, beans, etc.) to keep him and his family 
fed.  Now, are you really going to contend that because his welfare 
benefits came in the form of property that the government turned over to 
him instead of cash he could use to buy property that he was not on 
welfare?  And similarly, are yyou still ready to contend that welfare 
cowboys are not really welfare cowboys unless the government gives them 
some cash to go with the below cost grazing leases they are using to 
fatten their cattle?

: While there are apparently
: laws in some places that do not allow other people (non-ranchers) to bid for
: the lands, 

The entire federal grazing program leaves no room for competitive 
bidding, Phil.  Most or all state programs are no different in that 
respect.

: I doubt if there are enough people willing to put out $$$ to
: keep any significant portion of the lands out of "use". Come to think of
: it, if they was serious, they could buy ONE cow and bid ...

It doesn't work that way, Phil.  The welfare ranchers have their 
lobbiests visit sympathetic congressmen and administrators and convince 
them that they need to buy grazing leases at subsidized prices.  Then the 
land is offered as an entitlement to a handful of welfare ranchers.  Even 
if you are a professional rancher and always have been, you have no 
opportunity to outbid a welfare rancher on the federal entitlement 
program. 

: To keep by law land out of general use and restrict it for a very narrowly
: defined use is NOT a subsidy.

Then what is it?  Imagine if you, I, and ten other people owned some 
land.  You and the others want to use it for grazing.  I decide I would 
like to use it for a personal petting zoo to rival that of Michael 
Jackson's.  We set up a system that allows me to use it as a petting zoo, 
which renders the land just about worthless for grazing or any other 
purpose.  The agreement requires me to pay a fee that does not even come 
close to what you and the other partners could get for your shares of the 
property if you were allowed to sell it, let alone what it would be worth 
to you if you could use it in its original condition as you pleased.  
Clearly I have not bought out your interest in the property, yet I am 
allowed to use it as if I owned it outright.  Are you sure you and the 
others aren't subsidizing my "very narrowly defined use" of the commonly 
owned land?

: If you keep on using that word, then Yosemite is about the biggest subsidy
: around, because it has a huge value as developmental land, plus of course
: it would be a great tax base.

Once again, there is no federal propery tax that would enrich the owners 
of Yosemite if it was turned over to a handful of private developers.  
The land is worth a lot to the present owners in its present 
disposition.  The entire public, even those who do not live in the U.S., 
are invited to use the property in a variety of manners, so long as they 
do not impact the land such that its current, valuable features cannot be 
enjoyed by others for generations to come.  Who is being subsidized by 
what amount and at whose expense?

Todd Ourston