You won’t be rubbing my face in anything. Unlike you and your local cohorts, some people can be open minded and see things as they truly are, not how we want them to be or how we want it spun.
With your wealth of knowledge In everything, you might want to school the local real estate agents and LO’s. I’ll be sure and tell the lady that writes my checks that Buzzy said she hasn’t/won’t lose any value in her mile of river front property, I’m sure she’ll be a lot more comfortable knowing a blowhard from Wyoming has his finger on the pulse of NM real estate.
Originally Posted by BuzzH
Originally Posted by SLM
That’s BS and you know it.
I have no idea of Montana land values and wasn’t/won’t speak to them. The stream access ruling in NM will/has affected values in areas. The ruling was right and long over due, but to argue it has no affect on pricing in NM is ludicrous. People paid a premium to have exclusive use of waterfront property that they no longer have. Some LO,s were receiving 5 digit yearly leases for exclusive use that is no longer sellable. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that a once income producing property that is no longer an income producing property will lose value.
Originally Posted by BuzzH
Originally Posted by SLM
Should they lose? No, because the value should have never been there. Will this affect future sales and pricing of some properties? Absolutely.
Originally Posted by Fubarski
Originally Posted by SLM
Originally Posted by Fubarski
Originally Posted by SLM
LO’s stand to lose millions in property values.
How?
On the stream access issue, until last year, anyone who owned river/stream front property without public ground access had exclusive use/access to the water. Many of theses properties spent a bunch of money on fisheries projects and had world class fishing and profited from leases and or had water to themselves. People paid a premium for exclusive use that they no longer have.
The corner crossing issue is the same, people paid a premium for exclusive use of XXX amount of acres that they may now have only X. A lot of these properties were paying a low lease fee for the public ground, but in essence we’re able to utilize it as private. I know of 2 places that this will open up large tracts of public ground that outfitters are now paying a trespass fee to cross the deeded and pretty much have exclusive use of the public ground. The outfitters still have the advantage of the road systems that the public hunter wont have, but one of the properties I guarantee he won’t be in there alone anymore.
Don't know anything bout the stream issue, but the corner crossin properties haven't lost a dime.
No it won't...not a penny and that's a fact.
I'll keep this in mind when I'm looking for a piece of property on a stream/river in New Mexico and to also rub your face in same when property values don't decrease a single thin dime. Any kind of property in an arid state like New Mexico is only going to increase in value over time, stream access being legal or not.
LO's losing lease fees is not decreasing their land value, period, end of story. They were being compensated for something they didn't have the right to exclude others from. They should be thankful they got to take advantage for all those years of something they never have owned, just say thank you, and be on their way.
