Call to action - Oregon Elliott State Forest

Southern Elk · Feb 15, 2017

James Riley said:
Wow, sounds like they could have saved a million dollars a year by not logging it; then made money by leasing to a public interest group. But yeah, it's easier to liquidate. Future generations won't benefit from the land itself but those two people can invest the money in our soon-to-be deregulated markets and those generations will make all kinds of money! Yippee!

Or, the groups behind the lawsuits could have looked for a better alternative than causing the state to incur millions in legal fees. Now none of us get to enjoy it. It's always a two way street and all parties are going to have to work together, otherwise the only people benefiting from the land will be the wealthy who purchase it and the attorneys.

Nameless Range · Feb 15, 2017

Southern Elk said:
Or, the groups behind the lawsuits could have looked for a better alternative than causing the state to incur millions in legal fees. Now none of us get to enjoy it. It's always a two way street and all parties are going to have to work together, otherwise the only people benefiting from the land will be the wealthy who purchase it and the attorneys.

Yep.

Ultimately, those often-litigating groups that look at collaboration and compromise as a violation of their black and white environmental value systems are gonna have to look in the mirror and ask, "How's that workin out for ya?"

Big Fin · Feb 15, 2017

Nameless Range said:
Yep.

Ultimately, those often-litigating groups that look at collaboration and compromise as a violation of their black and white environmental value systems are gonna have to look in the mirror and ask, "How's that workin out for ya?"

I couldn't agree more.

And to counter Riley's scenario of leasing to some other group for far less, one must realize that when State Land Boards are doing their analysis of potential return on assets, they are required to look outside the paradigm of "must keep the asset in the form of land." They look at these assets from a portfolio perspective, the same as any money manager would do. If part of the portfolio is not performing, or worse yet, losing, that asset class is usually liquidated and reallocated to other asset types that are performing better.

There is nothing in these State Constitutions or Statutes governing State Land Boards that says they have to get the best return on "the land and only as land." That would imply you must keep it as land, and if so, then the idea to lease it for recreation purposes, however small that lease might be, might have some validity. These State Land Boards are to look at total return.

This is why the Elliot State Forest is the absolute crystal ball for concerns of State Transfer. Notice how the American Land Council and others are not saying a word about this. They know Elliot blows such a big hole in their boat that if people can see a tangible example of the terrible outcomes of State Transfer, they will never be able to bail the boat as fast as the water is coming in.

If the Elliot is in fact sold, which I hope it is not, public land advocates had best salvage from that wreckage the example of what State Transfer represents and use the Elliot history as the tool the kills this stupid idea once and for all.

James Riley · Feb 15, 2017

Southern Elk said:
Or, the groups behind the lawsuits could have looked for a better alternative than causing the state to incur millions in legal fees. Now none of us get to enjoy it. It's always a two way street and all parties are going to have to work together, otherwise the only people benefiting from the land will be the wealthy who purchase it and the attorneys.

There is no better alternative than to obey the law. Then logging could proceed. Your way is just money buying it's way around the law which in these United States is also perfectly legal. We just need to make sure everyone understands that while we are all equal under the law, those with money are more equal than those without out.

James Riley · Feb 15, 2017

Big Fin said:
I couldn't agree more.

And to counter Riley's scenario of leasing to some other group for far less, one must realize that when State Land Boards are doing their analysis of potential return on assets, they are required to look outside the paradigm of "must keep the asset in the form of land." They look at these assets from a portfolio perspective, the same as any money manager would do. If part of the portfolio is not performing, or worse yet, losing, that asset class is usually liquidated and reallocated to other asset types that are performing better.

There is nothing in these State Constitutions or Statutes governing State Land Boards that says they have to get the best return on "the land and only as land." That would imply you must keep it as land, and if so, then the idea to lease it for recreation purposes, however small that lease might be, might have some validity. These State Land Boards are to look at total return.

This is why the Elliot State Forest is the absolute crystal ball for concerns of State Transfer. Notice how the American Land Council and others are not saying a word about this. They know Elliot blows such a big hole in their boat that if people can see a tangible example of the terrible outcomes of State Transfer, they will never be able to bail the boat as fast as the water is coming in.

If the Elliot is in fact sold, which I hope it is not, public land advocates had best salvage from that wreckage the example of what State Transfer represents and use the Elliot history as the tool the kills this stupid idea once and for all.

That's not countering my scenario. It's proving my point. Also, most charges I am aware of look to "long term interest" not just portfolio performance.

James Riley · Feb 15, 2017

If the law (and it is emphatically the province of the courts to say what the law is) says you shouldn't be doing something, then either don't do it, violate it and take your chances, or change the law. But to say "Look the other way or we'll just sell it" is no less "extortion" than to say "Don't do it or we'll sue you."

Big Fin · Feb 15, 2017

James Riley said:
That's not countering my scenario. It's proving my point. Also, most charges I am aware of look to "long term interest" not just portfolio performance.

If that is what you are aware of, may I suggest that go read Statutes and Regulations governing the investment policies of western State Land Boards? If not found anything about "long term interest" in all of my research. All of my reading shows these charges to be focused on financial returns for funding the school system, with no other non-financial criteria are provided for consideration.

If you find something counter please share it, as I would want to know of it and use it as an argument as to why State Land Boards do not have to focus solely on financial returns.

Big Fin · Feb 15, 2017

James Riley said:
If the law (and it is emphatically the province of the courts to say what the law is) says you shouldn't be doing something, then either don't do it, violate it and take your chances, or change the law. But to say "Look the other way or we'll just sell it" is no less "extortion" than to say "Don't do it or we'll sue you."

And your logic implies that every lawsuit, which can be almost endless if you have a well-funded plaintiff with incentive to continue litigating, is somehow vindication that the plaintiff is correct in claiming the defendant has violated the law. It is part of the strategy of litigants that delay caused by litigation can be as effective as actually prevailing in court.

It would be nice if the world operated in this nice, clean, narrow, black-white legal world you want to paint; that the only lawsuits filed are those where people are violating a law. Lots of those lawsuits are rejected after years of litigation, at significant cost to the defendant; costs far beyond just the legal costs of litigation.

What you paint as this idea of "the only people sued are those guilty of violating the law" is not reality and the habitual litigators know that. For you to paint it in such a narrow and unrealistic manner seems counter to the normal wide scope thinking you profess to employ and encourage others to employ.

James Riley · Feb 15, 2017

Big Fin said:
If that is what you are aware of, may I suggest that go read Statutes and Regulations governing the investment policies of western State Land Boards? If not found anything about "long term interest" in all of my research. All of my reading shows these charges to be focused on financial returns for funding the school system, with no other non-financial criteria are provided for consideration.

If you find something counter please share it, as I would want to know of it and use it as an argument as to why State Land Boards do not have to focus solely on financial returns.

Perhaps I am wrong, or perhaps things have changed. I thought I recall original equal footing doctrine and "school trust" language regarding long term interest, as opposed to short term financial gain. I suppose I could go educate myself (again) but I'll trust you that they don't have to consider these things. It's a wonder the states have any left at all, eh? Especially since we've gone through much worse periods in history than what we face now. Wonder why liquidation did not occur sooner?

Southern Elk · Feb 15, 2017

James Riley said:
There is no better alternative than to obey the law. Then logging could proceed. Your way is just money buying it's way around the law which in these United States is also perfectly legal. We just need to make sure everyone understands that while we are all equal under the law, those with money are more equal than those without out.

You're assuming that laws were broken. Frivolous lawsuits happen everyday in this country. Tell us what laws were being broken or going to be broken and we can continue this conversation. I tend to believe that a timber company wouldn't have purchased it if they couldn't harvest the timber. Either way it looks like it's going to be sold and alternative solutions need to be found for similar situations in the future.

James Riley · Feb 15, 2017

Big Fin said:
And your logic implies that every lawsuit, which can be almost endless if you have a well-funded plaintiff with incentive to continue litigating, is somehow vindication that the plaintiff is correct in claiming the defendant has violated the law. It is part of the strategy of litigants that delay caused by litigation can be as effective as actually prevailing in court.

It would be nice if the world operated in this nice, clean, narrow, black-white legal world you want to paint; that the only lawsuits filed are those where people are violating a law. Lots of those lawsuits are rejected after years of litigation, at significant cost to the defendant; costs far beyond just the legal costs of litigation.

What you paint as this idea of "the only people sued are those guilty of violating the law" is not reality and the habitual litigators know that. For you to paint it in such a narrow and unrealistic manner seems counter to the normal wide scope thinking you profess to employ and encourage others to employ.

My logic implies nothing beyond the face of it: You don't like the law? Tough, violate it, or change it. So don't put words in my mouth. I never said anything about litigants being right. I said it is the courts who decide, not the parties. I've read your discontent with the way the legal system is used. Doesn't matter. Your redress in a nation of laws is to obey them, violate them and take your chances, or change them.

James Riley · Feb 15, 2017

Southern Elk said:
You're assuming that laws were broken. Frivolous lawsuits happen everyday in this country. Tell us what laws were being broken or going to be broken and we can continue this conversation. I tend to be live that a timber company wouldn't have purchased it if they couldn't harvest the timber. Either way it looks like it's going to be sold and alternative solutions need to be found for similar situations in the future.

I'm not assuming a damn thing. And no, we can continue this conversation when *you* show us that a law suit was indeed the genesis of the problem. Then you can read the pleadings for yourself.

Southern Elk · Feb 15, 2017

James Riley said:
I'm not assuming a damn thing. And no, we can continue this conversation when *you* show us that a law suit was indeed the genesis of the problem. Then you can read the pleadings for yourself.

It's obvious that you have to get the last word, so quote me one more time and you win. You said "There is no better alternative than to obey the law. Then logging could proceed." That assumes laws were broken. Fin already destroyed your argument. I'm out.

James Riley · Feb 15, 2017

Some Idaho language: "The land was granted under the condition that it be managed in perpetuity as a trust for the beneficiary institutions." And ". . . in such manner as will secure the maximum long-term financial return to the institution to which [it is] granted.”

Yeah, they can sell it. And if the respective boards were not politically appointed and having the capacity to avoid suit under sovereignty arguments, you could probably sue them for breach of fiduciary duty when selling lands or failing to accept higher bids from green groups.

Anyway, it's been decades since I was involved in all this but that is where I got my mistaken idea that they should manage for the long term.

Straight Arrow · Feb 15, 2017

It's obvious that you have to get the last word...

Southern Elk, you called it ... 'took less than four minutes.

James Riley · Feb 15, 2017

Southern Elk said:
It's obvious that you have to get the last word, so quote me one more time and you win. You said "There is no better alternative than to obey the law. Then logging could proceed." That assumes laws were broken. Fin already destroyed your argument. I'm out.

You don't know anything about injunctive or equitable relief. It does NOT assume laws were broken. It assumes you have to do XY and Z before you can proceed. If that is not cost effective for the logging company then they don't proceed. But the water and etc. and the long term interests of the beneficiary remain protected. Finn didn't destroy anything. But you run along now.

James Riley · Feb 15, 2017

Straight Arrow said:
Southern Elk, you called it ... 'took less than four minutes.

The last word is part of the record.

Big Fin · Feb 15, 2017

James Riley said:
...... Your redress in a nation of laws is to obey them, violate them and take your chances, or change them.

I agree with what is bolded. Unfortunately, none of that spells a good outcome for the Elliot State Forest, or any lands that end up being transferred to State Land Boards under the idea of State Transfer.

James Riley · Feb 15, 2017

Big Fin said:
I agree with what is bolded. Unfortunately, none of that spells a good outcome for the Elliot State Forest, or any lands that end up being transferred to State Land Boards under the idea of State Transfer.

Unfortunately indeed.

Big Fin · Feb 15, 2017

James Riley said:
Some Idaho language: "The land was granted under the condition that it be managed in perpetuity as a trust for the beneficiary institutions." And ". . . in such manner as will secure the maximum long-term financial return to the institution to which [it is] granted.”

Yeah, they can sell it. And if the respective boards were not politically appointed and having the capacity to avoid suit under sovereignty arguments, you could probably sue them for breach of fiduciary duty when selling lands or failing to accept higher bids from green groups.

Anyway, it's been decades since I was involved in all this but that is where I got my mistaken idea that they should manage for the long term.

Did you miss the part that said, "Financial Return" or is the just wanting to pick and choose that which fits the narrative? I have increased the font size so it is not so easy to disregard.

As uncomfortable as it is out here in the real world, the rest of the world is forced to read the entire sentences that comprise laws and regulations and work within those confines, with maybe some exceptions occupying Congress and the West Wing. Last I checked judges do not, and judges do not instruct juries to, use the five words they most liked out of 40 words presented as evidence and make their decisions on cases.

I suspect most would agree, other than you, that based on just what little you copied here from ID, that you are mistaken to have the idea that financial returns are not the criteria.

I do think all can agree that the Elliot will go down as a tragedy. I hope it gets salvaged in some way, shape or form.

Call to action - Oregon Elliott State Forest

Well-known member

Well-known member

Administrator

Banned

Banned

Banned

Administrator

Administrator

Banned

Well-known member

Banned

Banned

Well-known member

Banned

Well-known member

Banned

Banned

Administrator

Banned

Administrator

Similar threads

Forum statistics

Share this page