This program should have been ended years ago. We are allowing our government to borrow money to buy land to take it off the tax rolls to increase the tax burden on the taxpayers funding the purchases. It’s a boondoggle that riddled with the opportunity for graft and corruption. The government already owns too much land.
MADISON, Wis. (AP) — The Legislature’s Republican-controlled budget committee on Thursday voted to extend Wisconsin‘s contentious land stewardship program for four years, rather than another decade as Democratic Gov. Tony Evers wanted.
This is a horrible problem,and has been going on for decades.
They take private land off of tax payer rolls and then go on the state land.
The State of Wisconsin owns about 5.9 million acres of land in Wisconsin. Or about 9.300 square miles.
That’s outrageous.
They need to sell most of it.
But the Wisconsin is like the federal government, own as much land as possible.
Liberals do no want private land ownership and apparently, some members of the GOP do not want private land ownership either.
The State if Wisconsin owns about 14% of all land in Wisconsin.
The feds own another 1,793,10o acres or about about another 2700 square miles
So, just between the State and Feds, they own almost 12,900 square miles of Wisconsin land. And that doesn’t include local government ownership of land.
There are numerous benefits derived from public ownership of land: multiple forms of outdoor activity/tourism, forest products( our county generates $750K-$1M+ annually from timber sales from our county forest that goes directly into our general fund), habitat protection, water quality, carbon sequestration, etc.
Stewardship Fund money is often paired with other public /private funds to acquire and develop recreational facilities open to everyone, not just the landowners.
So, Le Roi, when does the State have enough land?
I agree that the State, county, and Feds should have land for the things you have mentioned, but when is it enough.
Plus, out West, the Feds have shut off some land to everyone, so you cannot do any activity on the land.
When is it enough? Probably when the majority of voters say it is. That hasn’t happened yet. But the demand for parks, trails, hunting access, boat landings, etc. continues to increase, especially in areas near population centers.
“Probably when the majority of voters say it is. That hasn’t happened yet.”
How do you know?
If a landowner donates the the land to the State, fine.
If the owner wants a bidding war, the State needs to stay out.
And the State and Feds need to stop buying land and instead, they need to sell some.
In reality, elected officials, for most part really don’t care what the voters want, unless it is an election year. Then they pretend to care.
All I can say is that you really don’t know much about how the State , or any other public entity using Stewardship funds, acquires land.
The blame, in your scenario, lies on the voters then, right?
Right, because you are an expert and know better?
You’re full of crap again. You’re an expert in nothing except lying and defending perverts.
And i offered opinions and you just say crap.
No, because I have done it. That makes me more knowledgeable than you for sure.
What experience do you have working with Stewardship funding? Oh, that’s right, you don’t need to actually know anything other than how to call folks smarter than you names.
Prove it. You say you have more education but never proved it. You say you have all these experiences and show no evidence of it.
You certainly haven’t proved it in this post.
Show some specifics on why the State buying more land is beneficial to the state and local governments. Show some knowledge instead of talking in general terms.
For instance, in Wood County, the State traded and bought forest land.
The State has to maintain it, the land was taken off the tax rolls, if it caught fire, local fire departments with the help of the state have to fight the fire, the state can declare that property off limits (I have no problem if the lumber/paper company did this because it is their private land) then how do these cities, towns and counties get back their tax money the lost?
Then the state has to hire someone to maintain the area, hire supervisors to oversee the lower rung people.
So, refute that statement with facts please.
mar:
I use general terms because, time after time, anything specific befuddles you.
So if you want specifics on how the Stewardship program works, or the benefits that parks, trails, outdoor recreation, etc, provide, look it up. If I can do it, surely someone as highly educated as you can do it. Or is that too much work for you?
Expert my ass.
You had a chance to prove your “expertise” and failed miserably.
Just another big fat lie from Le Roi.
Well, no doubt your hind end is far more intelligent than your head.
I failed at nothing, nor did I lie. And you are just far too lazy to do any research on your own.
So, once again, Le Roi has nothing but lies.
How many lies have we caught you in the past year or so? 20? 30? 100?
“nor did I lie” And another lie.101and lies caught at.
What was the lie, mar. Come on, tell the truth.
Hydroxychloroquine never works, you are an expert in something besides lying, you know something about the Stewardship program, your airplane ticket lie, just to name a few.
Oh, and the biggest lie when you say you don’t lie.
mar:
If you didn’t notice, this thread is about reauthorization of Stewardship funding. You really need to pay attention.
Brilliant comeback from a liar. I see you didn’t refute my claim that you are an expert in the Stewardship fund, which is part of this post.
Stevens Point wants their diploma back.
Refresh our memory Paul.