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 : Where the GIT's are going -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alan Smithee who wrote (181201)	7/17/2009 11:53:33 AM
From: ManyMoose	1 Recommendation Respond to of 225578

Some old metes and bounds surveys had very irregular boundaries. My wife's home county in Ohio was settled by Virginia veterans of the Revolutionary War, who got land grants instead of money for their service. These grants were bought and sold, but I think they were established before Ohio was surveyed. Therefore, the farmstead consisted of the land that the farmer stumped and farmed, and the boundaries were identifiable landmarks or other holdings. The worst effects of the township survey system developed a hundred years later, on railroad lands in the west. The government ceded to the railroads every other section for a specified distance from the right of way in order to stimulate expansion and settlement of the west. This had the desired effect, but some lands far from the right of way were substituted (I don't know the reason), and these lands were often too rough for settlement. However, they did have timber and eventually it became economical to harvest the timber. The result was a checkerboard pattern right down the section lines, and it looks like hell on Google Earth. Imposing an objective grid on a natural system has its drawbacks. You could play checkers on this....