Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Buying retreat land next to a National Park, i great idea

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Buying retreat land next to a National Park, i great idea

    Yes on the face of it, you are exponetionally increasing the use of your property and making sure you have a buiffer around you, right.

    Maybe not, check out this article

    Governor of Wyoming threatens to sell chunk of Grand Teton unless White House boosts state's education budget

  • #2
    Good point.

    I've never been a fan of the "retreat right next to a national forest" thing because more than a few people plan to flee to the national forests or will have to flee there when their city goes up in flames.

    Seems like if their was a place in the country where you could expect to see more refugees after TSHTF, a national park would be it.

    One poster on a state forum even had mapped out all the resources in these areas, giving them all cute little code names and designations.

    A lot of them in FL and GA are near or have springs, plenty of wildlife, etc.
    www.homesteadingandsurvival.com

    www.survivalreportpodcast.com

    "Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed..."

    Comment


    • #3
      my biggest concern with fleeing to the woods, is a lot of "city dwellers" will be there. They don't even have to be within 100 miles of your place to ruin it for you. They will light big wasteful fires, but the worst part is they will get out of hand. It does not really matter how it will happen, but there will be no one to fight it, it will travel until it runs out of fuel. With the way our "protectors" have handled forest management, all will be lost long before they run out of matches and gasoline.

      It could be a lightening strike to start it, but what ever the reason, not a great idea. But if that is all you have, then take steps to help yourself.

      Comment


      • #4
        It should be against the law for any governor or president to sell or mortgage any tax payer owned land without a vote on it by the people.
        Last edited by crossbow; 08-09-2010, 05:40 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          I thought "We The People" owned these parks/forests. Oh, I guess that was when I was younger. The US will have to pay our debtors some how....
          Protecting the sheep from the wolves that want them, their family, their money and full control of our Country!

          Guns and gear are cool, but bandages stop the bleeding!

          ATTENTION: No trees or animals were harmed in any way in the sending of this message, but a large number of electrons were really ticked off!

          NO 10-289!

          Comment


          • #6
            They are "International Biospheres Reserves" now and not National Parks anymore. It is a very sad outlook




            Found this in today news, about unintentional fires and how easy they can happen

            Boy, 14, suspected of starting LA-area wildfire
            SANTA CLARITA, Calif. (AP) - A 14-year-old boy who allegedly told deputies he dropped a lighter as he was trying to smoke pot in a field Sunday sparked a 40-acre blaze that briefly threatened some 50 homes and forced evacuations before it was contained, authorities said.

            WTOP delivers the latest news, traffic and weather information to the Washington, D.C. region. See today’s top stories.
            Last edited by eeyore; 08-09-2010, 02:11 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              The article you linked made me remember the not so distant Supreme Court ruling that any government, can FORCE a land owner to sell their property to said government as long as the government can prove that they are going to make more taxable income from said property. To which many states amended their own constitutions to help prevent local governments from going all glee happy with possible tax income at OUR expense.

              When the government becomes so big they can give you everything, they can also take everything!!

              ((not sure if that is the exact quote, but its close))

              Comment


              • #8
                "A government big enough to supply you with everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have...."
                is attributated to Thomas Jefferson and then quoted by Gerald Ford and Ronald Regan more recently. So very true.

                The case i think you are reffering to is this one, it was diffently a dark day for us

                Justices Affirm Property Seizures

                The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that local governments may force property owners to sell out and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public, even if the property is not blighted and the new project's success is not guaranteed.

                The 5 to 4 ruling provided the strong affirmation that state and local governments had sought for their increasing use of eminent domain for urban revitalization, especially in the Northeast, where many city centers have decayed and the suburban land supply is dwindling.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Thats what we get for having a FREE ride for justices being put into position.
                  Obama's first pick lied her tail off, and proved it in one of her first votes on gun ownership.
                  The system is so corrupt it disgusts me.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X