Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Ditter
If, as they say, the rancher was notified several times his lease was almost up and he needed to renew, I'm sure he would have done so, if they allowed him to.

They are claiming he didn't, but they are not saying they were willing to renew his lease.I'll bet he tried and they refused.
42 posted on 03/13/2004 8:43:33 AM PST by philetus (Keep doing what you always do and you'll keep getting what you always get)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies ]


To: philetus
Personaly I think the Laneys *own* ALL the land they have been using because they settled it originaly & have been there using it ever since. I know that is not how it works. If they owned all of it they would have been paying property taxes instead of lease payments. They might have a leg to stand on if they had been paying taxes.

We have land that we bought & paid for, pay taxes on & now the fed gov has made it useless by calling it wetlands. You can't develop or even clear wetlands even if it is just a mudhole in the woods that doesn't drain well.
49 posted on 03/13/2004 11:56:59 AM PST by Ditter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson