Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gst" data-source="post: 103349" data-attributes="member: 373">Allen, if you wish answers to question you ask, perhaps you can provide an answer to those asked of you. "So then the question is should we just assume that a Federal agency  willing to act like this is not part of the problem and it is soley this  one other fella ?"Please explain in more detail how we are being "raped" specifically in this case. I would say being permitted to drill wells and install sewers at significant expense only to be told you have to move in less than a years time after making those improvements would feel a bit like being "raped" wouldn't you? Now to answer your questions. "If I were to sign a lease, let's say to rent some of your pasture land  and it has a term on it of 1 yr.   Why would I expect to be able to sign  a lease the next year for the same terms and conditions? " Possibly because we had had an " an arrangement that has worked well  for decades" in place and I had given you "permits" to make long term improvements without indicating any changes were coming.  If I as the "landlord" gave you indication that you could indeed go ahead and put long term improvements on that property spending  thousands, and then jerked the lease out from under you after you had done that, what would be your response allen? It would be interesting to see what a court would say. But who will spend the hundreds of thousands to sue the Federal govt in a case that will ultimately end up in a Federal court.  From the article you did not indicate whether you bothered to read or not..........."The bureau’s draconian move came less than a year  after it had  advised owners of cabins and mobile homes that they could  expand the  structures on their parcels.  Believing in the  good faith of the bureau,  many people, at considerable personal  expense, added decks, sheds, and  other improvements to their  properties. “By issuing building permits for  decks, septic systems, and  other structures,” the Bismarck Tribune  noted in a recent editorial,  “the bureau has forfeited the ability to  tell those with mobile homes  parked in low-lying areas to simply clear  out."Should not  you as the owner be able to change conditions and/or rent?" Indeed at the end of a lease the owner of a property should be able to change conditions and or rent. Can you provide us information to show that after being permitted to make these long term improvements to the properties that all these mobile home leases were at their end? From the article I shared it does not appear that they were, only the structures that were tied to the permitted improvements were being required to be moved. So your made up scenario is kind of an apples to oranges comparison. If so, why were permanent structures allowed to remain and only the mobile home structures required to be moved? Would not those propane tanks from permanent homes not be just as large a concern to the residents of Mandan as they went down the glory hole at the dam? Are you angry about the permanent structure owners "raping" you  as well or is it only those "$3k shithole campers" that are "raping" you? The bottom line here is that the BOR , a Federal agency, pulled a shitty because they are the Federal govt and they can, that left people feeling no different than you would after drilling a well in a pasture you no longer get to use. And yet they now expect others to bend to their wants on peoples private property.- - - Updated - - -My apologizes, the answer to your question is certainly.</blockquote>

Verification: What is the most common fish caught on this site?

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA