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.
If the decision had been made the other way, do you feel someone wouldn't pay anymore for the Elk Mountain ranch, being that they'd have case law backing up their (basically) exclusive use of significant more acreage?
A quick, cursory google search brought up several unofficial news sites stating in various ways something to the effect of: "Eshelman bought the Elk Mountain Ranch in 2005 under the belief that he could control access to all the public land it enmeshed" and "When I bought the ranches, I was assured that corner crossing was illegal,” Eshelman said. “I went to BLM websites, and it said definitively, corner crossing is illegal.” That tells me Eshlman had at least some increased interest in the property due to the access situation, and I think it is a fair statement to say he was willing to pay more for it, due to him believing he could control access to the public land the ranch surrounded.
I haven't been following this story as closely as I probably should be, but with all this in mind, think SLM's argument has some merit. I also think that since various states have allowed access to state managed waterways as long as the person remains below the high water mark, that has had at least some affect on stream front property values. Just because your Blackfoot River property has gone up in value, that doesn't mean that it wouldn't have gone up even more if the stream access court decisions had ruled differently.
I admit I am a bit confused by this statement though:
Originally Posted by SLM
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.
Until last year, did New Mexico not allow public access along perennial streams as long as the person stays below the high water mark? I totally missed that whole situation, if so.
