🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3v8j9f$s5d@miwok.nbn.com> todd@linex.com (Todd Ourston) writes:
    >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.

What a maroon (B. Bunny)! I've said no such thing about fair pricing for
grazing lands. Idiot (or dolt). I've said that there is NO subsidy for
grazing lands because there is NO market for grazing lands. With no market,
you have no marketplace price. No marketplace price, no concept of
whether or not a price is "below market". Without that FACT, you can't
say there is a subsidy.

After the Yosemite fire, and the attempts by the Park Service to allow
people to rebuild, a SJMN article pointed out that the estimated real
estate value of all the homes in, disputed, and near Yosemite was
between 60 and 120 million dollars.

I could easily sell 1,000 million dollar homes in Yosemite. Forbes has
sold 200 million dollars worth on the "Forbes Ranch" development, and
that's noweher near as nice as Yosemite.

10,000 growing to 100,000 homes (very expensive homes) in 20 years at least.

As I said, the non-development of Yosemite is a multi-billion dollar subsidy to
park users.

    >... the Yosemite Valley long ago. I see no further connection
    >between Yosemite and welfare cowboys.

Well, then, we have to call the Yosemite park users "welfare park users" to
be consistent, won't we?


-- 
"I didn't do it, nobody saw me, and you can't prove it!" - B. Simpson

These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)