Jack Sparrow wrote on May 30, 2008 10:01 AM:
" I don't, because if they used that logic I'd have to pay a heck of a lot more in taxes than I do now. "
cewoodford wrote on May 30, 2008 9:52 AM:
" Ha...really demosthenes? I wish the tax assesor would use that same logic..that's good.. "
demosthenes wrote on May 30, 2008 2:10 AM:
" good farm land should be by far the most expensive land per acre, and that's going for 6k per acre. there is no reason that residential land should be going for 14k per acre, no matter what it overlooks. "
cewoodford wrote on May 29, 2008 11:29 AM:
" 14k per acre if it overlooks the Mississippi River valley? Doesnt sound like a bad deal to me at all to me at all. What do you think a lot overlooking the river is worth? What is a park worth to you? Again, nobody is holding a gun to the cities head to buy this parcel, this is a CHOICE they are making. "
Demosthenes wrote on May 28, 2008 11:28 PM:
" 36 acres for half a million dollars? What is the city thinking?! There is NO land in this area worth 14,000 dollars per acre. "
cewoodford wrote on May 27, 2008 11:42 AM:
" "The city doesnt owe Papenfuss anything and shouldnt be handing him a winning lottery ticket for having one of the last developable areas on the bluff"---. Again, what a shocking statement to hear. NoJim, the citydoesnt owe himanything...other than to STAY-AWAY from condemning HISproperty for their own personal gains. He OWNS thatproperty Jim,he pays taxes every year on it, it is HIS. WhatHE wants to sell itfor is HIS business, ifthe city doesnt like hisprice then they can step away. Your infering that he has a "lottery ticket" is a fools arguement meant to infer that he's taking advantage of a situation, nothing could be farther from the truth, like it or not, those lots up there are worth A LOT of $$$'s, and if the city wants to seize them, they have to step up to the plate like the rest of us out here in the free market. "
cewoodford wrote on May 27, 2008 11:31 AM:
" If you're going to seize or dimminish the value of someones property you MUST compensate them fairly. This ia a no-brainer. Not only should they be compenbsated in $$$'s, the city best send the tax assesor up to adjust all the bluff owners property tax statements as the value/taxable value of their properties have now diminished. How about a Bluff owner whose familiy has had the property for 100+yrs? Do all of the homeowners in Winona owe him compensation now? Really, before Winona was built, and certainly Goodview, that land had a pristine view of the river valley, unencumbered by a massive housing development(Goodview/Winona). "
cewoodford wrote on May 27, 2008 11:17 AM:
" and yes Jim, IT IS THE CITIES responsibility to ensure his property maintains its reasonable value, if the city deems it okay to dimminish his propertys value(no matter how subjective you personally feel that value to be)then it is the cities responsibility to REIMBURSE HIM FOR HIS LOSSES. I'm shocked you've taken the low road on the subject of property owners rights here..unbelieveably socialist.... "
cewoodford wrote on May 27, 2008 11:13 AM:
" "his appraisal is pure speculation built on unreasonable plans to park houses just off the ledges of the bluffs. Its not the citys responsibility to protect the landowners investment. The city doesnt owe Papenfuss anything and shouldnt be handing him a winning lottery ticket for having one of the last developable areas on the bluff" That Jim is the most socialist statement I have seen you type. Why dont you just condone the government to nationalize his property? "
winonaguy wrote on May 27, 2008 4:58 AM:
" The difference of course being that Yellowstone was already public property prior to it's dedication as a national park. It was not property that the government had deeded to private ownership and then took back which is essentially what we're speaking of in the case of the bluffs. In fact in the bluffs case it's, worse. At least at Yellowstone the public actually occupies the property and pays the costs of maintenance and upkeep. In the bluffs case members of the public want the benefit of private property without paying any of the associated costs. "
really? wrote on May 26, 2008 12:18 AM:
" Can you trust that you will always have a planning commission and council that will act responsibly to protect the law so that no variances will be offered? I wouldn't bet on it. I suspect that buying the land is the safest way to ensure that Winona's landmark is preserved forever. We could have zoned Yellowstone and allowed it to be privately owned, but instead made the commitment to preserve it for future generations. The bluffs ARE Winona. You can't afford to lose them. "
winonaguy wrote on May 25, 2008 11:44 AM:
" I agree that zoning and building regulations are necessary for an orderly society and public safety and welfare. It's my opinion that regulations extending to what some other property owner happens to see when he looks up at the sky from five miles away fall well outside the scope of safety and welfare.
RE: "It's time the city starts prohibiting the destruction of the bluffs............" What authority from on high has made that determination? I'm confident that those who wish to build million dollar homes on those same bluffs hardly see it as "destruction". "
xfs-123 wrote on May 25, 2008 9:14 AM:
" Winonaguy-every property owner must abide by some regulation of what can and can't be done with his land, regardless of where that land may be or how it it is zoned.
It's time the city starts prohibiting the destruction of the bluffs, homes being built on steep grades and in flood plains. But the problem is no matter what laws are passed, they will grant more variances than enforcement.
Money always seems to win the fight. "
winonaguy wrote on May 24, 2008 11:17 AM:
" So, you're argument goes something along the lines of two children fighting over a toy - "I had it first!", "No, I did!", "No, I DID!"............
Fortunately, private property rights run with the land and not with the people involved or these types of disputes would go on forever. I still maintain that if the "public" wishes to preserve a view, or a park, or a pond or a forest the private property owners involved should be paid for their land rather than having it confiscated from them. "
Sonny wrote on May 24, 2008 7:12 AM:
" Winonaguy- There have been buildings in this valley for over 100 years. Anybody alive that would want to build above the valley would have to accept that they would be looking down on those buildings, because they were here before you were born. There were reasons, other than the view, that people built in the valley. There are places to build where you can look down on an undeveloped valley. It isn't practical to "undo Winona" for your view. It is practical to keep the bluffs "clean". "
BadNews wrote on May 23, 2008 8:17 AM:
" I'd like to sell my Blufftop land for $500,000. Interested parties let me know. "
winonaguy wrote on May 23, 2008 8:12 AM:
" I find myself wondering why your "right" to look up from your privately owned land and see only rocks and sky trumps my "right" to look down from my privately owned land and see only praire and a beautiful river valley rather than rooftops and manufacturing plants. I guess it's a matter of perspective. Apparently, our city leaders have determined that the city electorate value an unimpeded view and, properly for a change, have decided to PAY the owners of the private property in question to preserve this view rather than stomp on their private property rights, as per usual, by passing some law. It's really not that hard Jim. "
Sonny wrote on May 23, 2008 7:42 AM:
" Two good articles again Jim. "
Advertisement
