Forums59
Topics1,058,951
Posts14,311,494
Members144,639
|
Most Online39,925 Dec 30th, 2023
|
|
Re: Lake Farfield-SAVED
[Re: bassdude10]
#14700307
04/25/23 02:16 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,325
Razorback
TFF Guru
|
TFF Guru
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,325 |
How many people are going to lose their land and homes if the state passes legislation that allows the park to remain open? Are there generations who grew up cultivating the land, tending to pets and livestock, raising children, and living in family homesteads all around Lake Fairfield, folks who will now be uprooted because the state is taking their property from them?
No, all of these homes and all this property are concepts right now, geographic shapes on a topo map. Break into singing Rain On The Scarecrow if it makes you feel better, but no one is having his home stolen by the state. The people who might have eventually lived there don't even know they may have lived there yet. So you are saying that the rule of law and property rights shouldn’t apply to everyone equally? We should pick and choose and if it’s an evil rich person or corporation who is getting screwed then it’s okay? You don’t see a slippery slope with that sort of precedent? We are a constitutional republic because our founding fathers didn’t want democracy. In a constitutional republic rights are protected, in a democracy a mob can vote to steal from others. Congrats on being part of the mob! The concept isn't exactly new. Do you think there were people who owned land where lakes, interstate highways, airports, and other public infrastructure are now? Smith County is about to build a new courthouse. They are buying land and buildings around the proposed site. If owners don't want to sell they will receive another offer. If they still don't want to sell the county will make them an offer they can't refuse. If the state makes the developer whole in terms of what he paid or intends to pay on a new acquisition, the harm is somewhere between minimal and non-existent. The rich guy can take his money, buy or build another lake that has not been stocked and maintained for the last 50 years at taxpayer expense, and develop his luxury homes site at a place that isn't a state park.
|
|
Re: Lake Farfield-SAVED
[Re: Razorback]
#14700329
04/25/23 02:32 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 41,110
Allison1
TFF Guru
|
TFF Guru
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 41,110 |
The concept isn't exactly new. Do you think there were people who owned land where lakes, interstate highways, airports, and other public infrastructure are now? Smith County is about to build a new courthouse. They are buying land and buildings around the proposed site. If owners don't want to sell they will receive another offer. If they still don't want to sell the county will make them an offer they can't refuse.
If the state makes the developer whole in terms of what he paid or intends to pay on a new acquisition, the harm is somewhere between minimal and non-existent. The rich guy can take his money, buy or build another lake that has not been stocked and maintained for the last 50 years at taxpayer expense, and develop his luxury homes site at a place that isn't a state park. and you don't see the difference or you would not have posted this rubbish. If a need exists for the state to buy property they can buy up land or use emininent domain to force a sale. Here we have a law being passed to keep the owners from operating their property and forces them to use it as if the state owned it. Bottom line is they had their chance. There is not one thing that kept them from bidding on it when it was up for sale. They waited until it sold and people protested so big brother was forced to enact a new law that makes the properties value drop off the charts. My post above about people reaching? That is you.
|
|
Re: Lake Farfield-SAVED
[Re: Allison1]
#14700346
04/25/23 02:46 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,325
Razorback
TFF Guru
|
TFF Guru
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,325 |
and you don't see the difference or you would not have posted this rubbish.
If a need exists for the state to buy property they can buy up land or use emininent domain to force a sale. Here we have a law being passed to keep the owners from operating their property and forces them to use it as if the state owned it.
Bottom line is they had their chance. There is not one thing that kept them from bidding on it when it was up for sale. They waited until it sold and people protested so big brother was forced to enact a new law that makes the properties value drop off the charts.
My post above about people reaching? That is you.
Explain exactly, in specific and practical terms the difference between the state declaring eminent domain in a case of public need and forcing the sale of property vs. the state declaring a public need to continue use of this state park and forcing the proposed owner to allow it. Is the proposed owner banned or in any way restrained from selling any or all property it acquires? The state tried to buy the property, but the developer refused. The developer's loss would have been zero if he had backed out of the deal. No one is bulldozing PawPaw's log cabin and forcing him to live under a bridge here.
|
|
Re: Lake Farfield-SAVED
[Re: Razorback]
#14700358
04/25/23 02:52 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,239
bassdude10
Extreme Angler
|
Extreme Angler
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,239 |
and you don't see the difference or you would not have posted this rubbish.
If a need exists for the state to buy property they can buy up land or use emininent domain to force a sale. Here we have a law being passed to keep the owners from operating their property and forces them to use it as if the state owned it.
Bottom line is they had their chance. There is not one thing that kept them from bidding on it when it was up for sale. They waited until it sold and people protested so big brother was forced to enact a new law that makes the properties value drop off the charts.
My post above about people reaching? That is you.
Explain exactly, in specific and practical terms the difference between the state declaring eminent domain in a case of public need and forcing the sale of property vs. the state declaring a public need to continue use of this state park and forcing the proposed owner to allow it. Is the proposed owner banned or in any way restrained from selling any or all property it acquires? The state tried to buy the property, but the developer refused. The developer's loss would have been zero if he had backed out of the deal. No one is bulldozing PawPaw's log cabin and forcing him to live under a bridge here. There is no “public need” for recreational activities. What does eminent domain have to do with the bill being discussed? Where do you see the state tried to buy the property? How much did the state offer?
|
|
Re: Lake Farfield-SAVED
[Re: bassdude10]
#14700408
04/25/23 03:20 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,325
Razorback
TFF Guru
|
TFF Guru
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,325 |
There is no “public need” for recreational activities. What does eminent domain have to do with the bill being discussed? Where do you see the state tried to buy the property? How much did the state offer?
I haven't been involved in the negotiations, nor have any of us, but here's what we are being told: The state agency said state lawmakers “strongly” support helping it acquire the land that is now Fairfield Lake State Park. It said fnds now available from the constitutional amendment dedicating sporting goods sales tax to support state parks could be tapped to make the land purchase, along with federal land and water conservation funds.
”Today’s heartbreaking announcement of the closing of Fairfield Lake State Park is a tremendous loss for Freestone County and all Texans who enjoy our state’s unique parklands,” said State Sen. Charles Schwertner. “It is unfortunate that Vistra and this private developer were unable to come to an agreement that would have allowed the state of Texas to purchase the park from Vistra to maintain it for future generations of Texans.”
TPWD said it will continue to work to buy, and potentially, expand the park, but make it clear the new owner does not intend to use the property as a state park.
https://www.kwtx.com/2023/02/15/fairfield-state-park-close-permanently-feb-28/As for "there is no public need for recreational activities", why do we have state parks? Or boat ramps? Or basketball courts and soccer fields at city parks?
Last edited by Razorback; 04/25/23 03:21 PM.
|
|
Re: Lake Farfield-SAVED
[Re: Verkeith]
#14700544
04/25/23 05:19 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2019
Posts: 661
Cuervo Jones
Pro Angler
|
Pro Angler
Joined: Oct 2019
Posts: 661 |
Hope it IS saved. Never got to fish it when I worked and now that I'm retired, I'd really like to spend some time there. Score one for the working man (maybe)!
“Slide”
|
|
Re: Lake Farfield-SAVED
[Re: Cuervo Jones]
#14700587
04/25/23 05:57 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 27,643
SteezMacQueen
TFF Guru
|
TFF Guru
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 27,643 |
Hope it IS saved. Never got to fish it when I worked and now that I'm retired, I'd really like to spend some time there. Score one for the working man (maybe)! You better hurry. It’s isn’t “saved”. It’s prolonging the inevitable. It’s closing in a month….maybe 6 weeks.
Eat. Sleep. Fish.
|
|
Re: Lake Farfield-SAVED
[Re: bassdude10]
#14700605
04/25/23 06:17 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,503
Jake Shannon(Skeet4Life)
TFF Celebrity
|
TFF Celebrity
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,503 |
So the government that always picks special interest groups, lobbyist and large corporations over the average working man is going to possibly do something positive that would make your life better.......... But you don't want it because its "stealing" the government is the king daddy of all the thieves out there you should be happy they even considered "stealing" something for you rather than "stealing" from you.
I guess if they decided to take away a billionaires bass boat and give it to you, you would turn it down...… some of yall are so full of shhit you cant hear yourselves talk. One of the dumbest comments I’ve ever read on here. This shows who you really are. I absolutely would not take a stolen boat because I’m not a worthless piece of [censored]. Good to hear that you’re not a pice of [censored] you’re just an idiot. It’s amazing how some of y’all see this as black and white, nothing is black and white these days. The government stole your tax dollars for your entire life without your consent then they put some of that money into an investment for the TAX payers and now it’s being taken away from you…… but you wanna talk about how the state forcing the owners to sell the land to them is “stealing”. Was it stupid for the government to do that with your money? Investing it into something they never owned. Yes of course it was stupid. The government is filled to the brim with stupid people doing stupid stuff. But instead of correcting this issue you would rather them let it get sold and turned into something that most of us will be never be able to use again. Why would you want that? You want the tax payers to be punished because of the governments stupidity? For what purpose? Just so you can feel good that the government didn’t “steal” the big guys investment property….. It is black and white. The bill introduced is a direct attack on private property rights. It’s pathetic that it would pass and have support in a conservative state. Private property rights are fundamental rights, without them we have nothing. This should scare the [censored] out of y’all, instead you have a bunch of hillbilly [censored] fishermen cheering for massive government overreach so they can keep fishing a lake that they have no rights to. its hilarious how this "infringement" on the property rights of a billionaire developer has gotten your panties into a wad. Until we have no property taxes do we really have private property rights? You don't even have the right to own your own property unless you pay the taxes on it........ If you don't pay guess what happens? Fundamentally we are not that far off from each other. I have just chosen to support something that makes my life and the local regular middle class tax payers life better and you have chosen to back the real estate developer. Guess you are eye balling one of the lots?
|
|
Re: Lake Farfield-SAVED
[Re: Razorback]
#14700645
04/25/23 07:06 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,239
bassdude10
Extreme Angler
|
Extreme Angler
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,239 |
There is no “public need” for recreational activities. What does eminent domain have to do with the bill being discussed? Where do you see the state tried to buy the property? How much did the state offer?
I haven't been involved in the negotiations, nor have any of us, but here's what we are being told: The state agency said state lawmakers “strongly” support helping it acquire the land that is now Fairfield Lake State Park. It said fnds now available from the constitutional amendment dedicating sporting goods sales tax to support state parks could be tapped to make the land purchase, along with federal land and water conservation funds.
”Today’s heartbreaking announcement of the closing of Fairfield Lake State Park is a tremendous loss for Freestone County and all Texans who enjoy our state’s unique parklands,” said State Sen. Charles Schwertner. “It is unfortunate that Vistra and this private developer were unable to come to an agreement that would have allowed the state of Texas to purchase the park from Vistra to maintain it for future generations of Texans.”
TPWD said it will continue to work to buy, and potentially, expand the park, but make it clear the new owner does not intend to use the property as a state park.
https://www.kwtx.com/2023/02/15/fairfield-state-park-close-permanently-feb-28/As for "there is no public need for recreational activities", why do we have state parks? Or boat ramps? Or basketball courts and soccer fields at city parks? State parks, boat ramps, basketball courts, and soccer fields aren’t needs. Show me where a public basketball court was built on land taken through eminent domain. Regarding the first part of your post, the state had plenty of time to buy the land. They are now trying to posture publicly like they made a legitimate attempt to buy it, which this posturing has been made only after a huge public outcry. The state missed their opportunity and is now trying to use the BS regulation in the bill being discussed to strong arm the developer.
|
|
Re: Lake Farfield-SAVED
[Re: Jake Shannon(Skeet4Life)]
#14700655
04/25/23 07:11 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,239
bassdude10
Extreme Angler
|
Extreme Angler
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,239 |
One of the dumbest comments I’ve ever read on here. This shows who you really are. I absolutely would not take a stolen boat because I’m not a worthless piece of [censored].
Good to hear that you’re not a pice of [censored] you’re just an idiot. It’s amazing how some of y’all see this as black and white, nothing is black and white these days. The government stole your tax dollars for your entire life without your consent then they put some of that money into an investment for the TAX payers and now it’s being taken away from you…… but you wanna talk about how the state forcing the owners to sell the land to them is “stealing”. Was it stupid for the government to do that with your money? Investing it into something they never owned. Yes of course it was stupid. The government is filled to the brim with stupid people doing stupid stuff. But instead of correcting this issue you would rather them let it get sold and turned into something that most of us will be never be able to use again. Why would you want that? You want the tax payers to be punished because of the governments stupidity? For what purpose? Just so you can feel good that the government didn’t “steal” the big guys investment property….. It is black and white. The bill introduced is a direct attack on private property rights. It’s pathetic that it would pass and have support in a conservative state. Private property rights are fundamental rights, without them we have nothing. This should scare the [censored] out of y’all, instead you have a bunch of hillbilly [censored] fishermen cheering for massive government overreach so they can keep fishing a lake that they have no rights to. its hilarious how this "infringement" on the property rights of a billionaire developer has gotten your panties into a wad. Until we have no property taxes do we really have private property rights? You don't even have the right to own your own property unless you pay the taxes on it........ If you don't pay guess what happens? Fundamentally we are not that far off from each other. I have just chosen to support something that makes my life and the local regular middle class tax payers life better and you have chosen to back the real estate developer. Guess you are eye balling one of the lots? No I’m not eyeballing one of the lots. My morals and principles don’t change based on the net worth of one of the parties involved. Yours do, and that means you and I are fundamentally mountains apart.
|
|
Re: Lake Farfield-SAVED
[Re: Verkeith]
#14700664
04/25/23 07:20 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 41,110
Allison1
TFF Guru
|
TFF Guru
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 41,110 |
Its basically a cop out issue. Do you back the state stepping in and making a property owner submit to them or do you believe in property owners rights.
Here we have one party that chose to not participate in the deal, knowing that they could be required to leave by the new owner. Once the sale occurred and it was apparent the new owner would exercise that right the state steps in, made a new law specifically for this situation and will not allow the new owner to use the land for its intended purpose.
The new owner might sue the state and put the purchase on hold pending the outcome of the case. The current owner may join the new owner in suing the state. If the state has a sense of honesty in this case, IMO they would step up and make a deal to buy the land from the new owner instead of making a law that devaluates the land like they did.
|
|
Re: Lake Farfield-SAVED
[Re: Verkeith]
#14700778
04/25/23 09:23 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 21,864
Douglas J
TFF Guru
|
TFF Guru
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 21,864 |
RIP 
![[Linked Image]](https://texasfishingforum.com/forums/pics/userpics/2024/11/full-72311-248284-f6b1190b_bbab_49d4_a1b2_6e9a1ce426f7.jpeg) #MFGA
|
|
Re: Lake Farfield-SAVED
[Re: Verkeith]
#14700812
04/25/23 10:02 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,986
TxDanFishMan
Extreme Angler
|
Extreme Angler
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,986 |
I can't seem to find the public boat ramp on this map ![[Linked Image]](https://texasfishingforum.com/forums/pics/userpics/2023/04/full-45380-180838-freestone_marketingpresentation_slide32.jpg)
Slide right, coming in .... Fish On!
|
|
Re: Lake Farfield-SAVED
[Re: TxDanFishMan]
#14700820
04/25/23 10:08 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 21,864
Douglas J
TFF Guru
|
TFF Guru
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 21,864 |
I can't seem to find the public boat ramp on this map stick it to "the man"
![[Linked Image]](https://texasfishingforum.com/forums/pics/userpics/2024/11/full-72311-248284-f6b1190b_bbab_49d4_a1b2_6e9a1ce426f7.jpeg) #MFGA
|
|
Re: Lake Farfield-SAVED
[Re: Verkeith]
#14700839
04/25/23 10:32 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 9,212
Scoundrel
TFF Celebrity
|
TFF Celebrity
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 9,212 |
Can we just make an exchange with Todd Interests to get the beautiful Mountain Creek Lake for their $1B development and let the little people have Fairfield Lake SP? 
Last edited by Scoundrel; 04/25/23 11:29 PM.
|
|
Moderated by banker-always fishing, chickenman, Derek 🐝, Duck_Hunter, Fish Killer, J-2, Jacob, Jons3825, JustWingem, Nocona Brian, Toon-Troller, Uncle Zeek, Weekender1
|