Resorts & Lodging
Fishing Guides
Bait & Tackle Shops
Products & Services
Important Links
Classified Ads
Contact Us & More
Minnesota Fishing Reports


(1) 2 3 4 ... 12 »



Re: Cass lake cabin owners~
LSF Member
Joined:
03/29/2013
Posts: 119
I wouldn't be too surprised if the cabins ultimately are allowed to stay but the rent increases by 10X. Can't afford it? That's the tenants' problem.

Posted on: 10/20 9:43:27
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: Natives Allowed to hunt Moose again
LSF Member
Joined:
03/29/2013
Posts: 119
Quote:

Bandersnatch wrote:
Quote:

LOW1 wrote:
Quote:

Bandersnatch wrote:
Quote:

LOW1 wrote:
Yes, there would have to be two components on each side. the "static" value of the casino/res/trust properties, the "static" value of the 13 million acres, the revenue generated by the casino/res/trust properties and the revenue generated by the 13 million acres.


I am going to guess that the 13 million acres produces at least $50 million in property tax alone.


Depending on location. Exemptions for this that and the other thing, don'tcha know.


In 2015 Mille Lacs County generated about $15 million in property tax. http://www.auditor.state.mn.us/Search/CountySearch.aspx

This doesn't include the other counties that now exist on the 13 million acres.

I assume that city property taxes are in addition to this?


If the Bands published The Take we could have a real conversation!

The last estimate that I heard on the Mille Lacs Band for both Casinos was right around 750K on just the Slots. I believe that was Per Week.

But that was Years ago


I added up the property taxes collected in 2015 for Crow Wing, Mille Lacs, Atkin, Pine, Kanabec, Isanti, Chisago, Benton and Morrison counties and came up with about $175 million for that year.

That just the county tax revenue and doesn't include the income which was earned in those counties from the 13 million acres.

Posted on: 9/13 13:09:54
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: Natives Allowed to hunt Moose again
LSF Member
Joined:
03/29/2013
Posts: 119
Quote:

Bandersnatch wrote:
Quote:

LOW1 wrote:
Yes, there would have to be two components on each side. the "static" value of the casino/res/trust properties, the "static" value of the 13 million acres, the revenue generated by the casino/res/trust properties and the revenue generated by the 13 million acres.


I am going to guess that the 13 million acres produces at least $50 million in property tax alone.


Depending on location. Exemptions for this that and the other thing, don'tcha know.


In 2015 Mille Lacs County generated about $15 million in property tax. http://www.auditor.state.mn.us/Search/CountySearch.aspx

This doesn't include the other counties that now exist on the 13 million acres.

I assume that city property taxes are in addition to this?

Posted on: 9/13 12:42:12
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: Natives Allowed to hunt Moose again
LSF Member
Joined:
03/29/2013
Posts: 119
Yes, there would have to be two components on each side. the "static" value of the casino/res/trust properties, the "static" value of the 13 million acres, the revenue generated by the casino/res/trust properties and the revenue generated by the 13 million acres.


I am going to guess that the 13 million acres produces at least $50 million in property tax alone.

Posted on: 9/13 11:27:57
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: Natives Allowed to hunt Moose again
LSF Member
Joined:
03/29/2013
Posts: 119
Quote:

Bandersnatch wrote:
That would depend on the productivity of that land, and its taxable value when compared to the Res lands, don't you think?

Before answering, remember, Minnesota is a special case. It is the only State that the casinos get a free ride. So that Dollar per Acre is going to be worth Way More that you may have envisioned initially.


I agree that it would be an interesting calculation.

If there are enough zeros in my calculation, 13 million acres at $1000 per acre is $13 Billion. Then we would have to add the value of the houses, factories, etc. (We could probably get this from assessment records but I am not that ambitious)

If we assume that the improvements are equal in value to the land that would be $26 billion in real estate value. Plus all the income and income tax generated from this land and the resulting jobs over the years.

What's a casino worth? I don't know. A guess would be $50 Million or so but that's just a guess.

And we can't include the cost of social programs when calculating what the Bands received under the treaty, as they did not get citizenship under the treaty and instead did not get that until the 1920s.

Posted on: 9/13 10:20:08
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: Natives Allowed to hunt Moose again
LSF Member
Joined:
03/29/2013
Posts: 119
Quote:

Bandersnatch wrote:
Quote:

otter wrote:
You know you have no leg to stand on when you start bickering over petty little things. What has a greater value 2+ million acres of land or 2 million lbs of walleyes and 1000 moose? Don't forget without the treaty Mille Lacs could have a similar reservation system as Lower Red.


That one is easy!

To the State and its Citizens the fish, fowl, and fur are the more valuable.

Why you ask?

Because that acreage is not taxable when under Band ownership.
It is a net loss for the State and it Citizens, who must still maintain access to that now Sovereign land that contributes nothing back to the State in Taxes.


"We" received 13 million acres of land under the treaty. This is not reservation land. Some of this is public land but much of it is private land on which cities, farms, homes and industries have been built. The treaty made this development possible. This development generates huge property and income tax revenues. Aren't these 13 million acres and the resulting taxes far more valuable than what the Bands received under the treaty?

Posted on: 9/13 9:53:36
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: Natives Allowed to hunt Moose again
LSF Member
Joined:
03/29/2013
Posts: 119
Quote:

jriegel wrote:
Quote:

LOW1 wrote:
Quote:

Kato wrote:
Quote:

chris63 wrote:
I know your hung up on certain words that seem to irritate you.Im not trying to put comments or words in any ones post.If you want to substitute people or customs for culture that is fine.When it comes to hunting/fishing and gathering all "cultures"do some things the same identical way.Imagine that!c63


Not hung up or irritated at all. It all boils down to equality for all. Which means we all "pay" we all "play". Special rights for special people, doesnt matter which group of people, is what is ripping this country apart. IMHO


As I see it both sides received "special rights" under the treaty. The Bands received (or kept) harvest and co-management rights. We received millions of acres of valuable land.

It's real hard to say that the Bands should now give up their "special rights" but we should nevertheless still be able to keep ours.

And if its any consolation, who do you think got the better end of the deal under the treaty? The harvest and co-management rights are insignificant in light of the profits and lifestyles enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of "us" because "we" acquired that land.



Natives got the better end of the deal. Name one other country where the indigenous people who were conquered were not forced to assimilate? Both parties would be better off if that happened. Sorry its a law of nature the stomger and smarter survive. This post is not intended to be anyway racist.


But the Bands were never conquered. The records make it very clear that we wanted to avoid war and wanted to peacefully acquire the land.

Could we have conquered them? Maybe. But at a great cost. Including the potential loss of the iron range to Great Britain. We did not want to go that route.

Posted on: 9/12 15:17:13
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: Natives Allowed to hunt Moose again
LSF Member
Joined:
03/29/2013
Posts: 119
Quote:

Kato wrote:
Quote:

chris63 wrote:
I know your hung up on certain words that seem to irritate you.Im not trying to put comments or words in any ones post.If you want to substitute people or customs for culture that is fine.When it comes to hunting/fishing and gathering all "cultures"do some things the same identical way.Imagine that!c63


Not hung up or irritated at all. It all boils down to equality for all. Which means we all "pay" we all "play". Special rights for special people, doesnt matter which group of people, is what is ripping this country apart. IMHO


As I see it both sides received "special rights" under the treaty. The Bands received (or kept) harvest and co-management rights. We received millions of acres of valuable land.

It's real hard to say that the Bands should now give up their "special rights" but we should nevertheless still be able to keep ours.

And if its any consolation, who do you think got the better end of the deal under the treaty? The harvest and co-management rights are insignificant in light of the profits and lifestyles enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of "us" because "we" acquired that land.

Posted on: 9/12 13:31:21
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: Natives Allowed to hunt Moose again
LSF Member
Joined:
03/29/2013
Posts: 119
Unfortunately it cannot ever be just about the moose (or the walleye, whatever.) What has happened in the past has caused this to become a fight over sovereignity. Its the same reason why the United States sends naval vessels to patrol China-made "islands" or why Canada wants to build arctic ports: to make a claim to the "turf" that is involved.

I suspect that for the bands having the power and ability to decide is at least as important as harvesting moose. And given the history, I can certainly understand why they feel the need to do so.

Hopefully the biologists will work together behind the scenes.

Unless people accept that the bands have both sovereignity AND the rights of US citizenship things will not get better.

Posted on: 9/10 10:48:34
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer


Re: Third petition for relief on Mille Lacs walleye mismanagement
LSF Member
Joined:
03/29/2013
Posts: 119
Actually, it does take a biologist. If you want to have any credibility that is.

Posted on: 9/1 13:38:45
Transfer the post to other applications Transfer



 Top
(1) 2 3 4 ... 12 »




 

 
Copyright 2004-2013 Lake State Fishing P.O. Box 577 Deerwood, MN 56444 612-414-5593
All logos and trademarks are property of their respective owners. |  Lake State Fishing |   Login lakestatefishing.com Facebook Page lakestatefishing.com Twitter Page lakestatefishing.com LinkedIn Page lakestatefishing.com YouTube Page