Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MSB who wrote (65024)	12/4/1999 1:32:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

MSB, I'm a bit of an armchair environmentalist myself so I don't want to sound preachy on this matter... there are two sides here and both arguments have merit (even the wackos!). I think the situation is that historically there are privately owned lands that (had legislation existed at the time) many feel should belong to the public trust. Some beaches are like that (which are owned by hotels, for example), and these old-growth forests. First of all, what were the other alternatives available to the person with the junk bond debt? I don't know so I'm counting on you telling me. I really don't think there are any. Its just a guy who got himself into debt... it doesn't really matter how, (althought the environmentalists often mention the junk bond issue since that conveys a sense of greed in these individuals... whether its relevant or not I don't know)... anyway, hes in debt for boucoup $$ and his alternatives are to clearcut or sell the property. Secondly, while I would certainly hate to see something of such long origins disappear (as it was also suggested by another), to what extent do individuals have a right to tell another what he or she can or can't do with a piece of property? Do those doing the telling also help with the maintenance of property taxes and so forth? Well thats the whole issue. And this has come up before, for example I know it happened in the 80s with the fine art market. People owned these paintings privately but they were on display in US museums and as such were tremendous benefits to the public and municipalities (tourism, etc.). I know for art, over the years tax incentives were given to people that held it so in some ways you could say a Van Gogh owner had a debt to the public... how much of one I don't know but its there. The way they handled it with art was to pass some tax loophole where the current appraised value of art could be deducted against taxes carrying forward forever (I think) if you donated your $80mm Van Gogh to the Moma. The problem with these headlands is theres really no way to pull something like that off with simply a tax loophole, since these are revenue generating properties. If the public buys the land its going to be so expensive its hard to justify... and a HUGE windfall for the owners which could signify every other greedy owner to start clearcutting as a way to hold the US govt hostage for a colossal buyout. In the end part of these lands were bought by the public trust, I looked on the web and all I could find was this article which was at a point in the deal when it looked "dead".. Headwaters Agreement Looks Dead Pacific Lumber rejects $480 million deal . Eventually it did go through, but the net net of it is that the public had to pay for this misuse of lands dearly... he knew when he bought it (in a HOSTILE TAKEOVER) that clearcutting shouldn't be an option, imo. Maxxam is controlled by Texas financier Charles Hurwitz, who purchased Pacific Lumber in a 1985 hostile takeover buttressed by junk bonds. sfgate.com