MILLINOCKET, Maine — Major Katahdin region landowner Katahdin Timberlands LLC will begin selling more than 700 leased lakefront camp lots in unincorporated parts of Penobscot and Piscataquis counties this year, an action likely to prompt a construction industry boom and greater security for lot owners, officials said Tuesday.
The economic impact of the sales likely will be enormous, said Dan Corcoran, a Millinocket real estate broker and licensed forester who owns North Woods Real Estate.
“It is absolutely huge. This is as big as the mill starting. This will have a tremendous impact on the economy of this area,” Corcoran said Tuesday. “It will open up camp sales to a much broader market and a higher-end market.”
The lots will be offered for sale first to the leaseholder of record at fair market value, consistent with Katahdin Timberlands lease agreement provisions and Maine law governing sales of leased premises, said Marcia McKeague, president of Katahdin Timberlands LLC.
“We would like to emphasize that not all lots will be offered for sale,” McKeague said in a letter to leaseholders mailed Friday. “KTL will focus first on selling those lots which occur in large blocks and have straightforward access to public roads.”
The first sales of as many as 200 to 300 lots are likely to occur late this year. Almost all of the land is on lakefronts, including South and North Twin, Pemadumcook, Millinocket, Ambajejus, Caribou and Cedar lakes, McKeague said. Almost all of the lots already have camps on them ranging from seasonal to year-round residences.
The lots are in Township 1 Range 8, Indian Purchase 4 and Long A Township in Penobscot County; and Township 1 Range 9, Township 1 Range 10 and Township 3 Range 12 in Piscataquis County, Corcoran said.
The lots and buildings are worth $75,000 to more than $400,000, he said.
“These are all lands that have been developed for a long time,” Corcoran said. “Some that have been leased for more than 100 years. They have never been owned by leaseholders before.”
Katahdin Timberlands owns about 1,200 acres in the Katahdin region. The sales will divest the company of most of that acreage, McKeague said.
Timberlands’ sister company Katahdin Forest Management LLC owns about 300,000 acres, placing the two companies among the region’s largest landowners, McKeague said.
One of the last similar leased-lot sales occurred in 2006 and 2007 when heirs of Webber Timberlands Co. — one of Lincoln’s largest landowners, owning half of the town’s 23,000 forestry acres at the time — offered for sale at least 125 leased lots. That led to an explosion in building permits issued on property around Lincoln’s Caribou, Egg, Long and Upper Coldstream ponds and lakes and a tripling of the number of building permits issued overall as new lakefront property owners improved their lots, town officials said.
It also displaced many lifelong Lincoln residents as lakefront property values and taxes climbed. Many moved into the downtown area and sought building permits for housing they bought there, Lincoln officials said.
Corcoran and McKeague doubted that much leaseholder displacement will occur.
“Most of them [leaseholders] will be very happy to be able to purchase lots. Many of them have been asking about buying for a while,” McKeague said. “Many of them are not in a position to buy, so that will create some difficult choices. I think some people will decide to sell to their children or relatives.”
About 90 percent of the lots are recreational properties, not year-round residences as Lincoln has, Corcoran said. Taxes in the unincorporated areas are lower than in Lincoln, which may prevent leaseholder displacement. Many of the properties already are owned by out-of-staters and Mainers not living in the Katahdin region, Corcoran said.
“One of the benefits about the timing of this is that lot values have decreased from their peak [in 2008 and 2009] and interest rates are very low. I think that will be helpful to some people who thought they might not be able to afford it otherwise,” McKeague said.
“I see very little displacement, but I do anticipate investment in properties, a significant increase in improvements to existing buildings and new developments,” Corcoran said.
The leases were often a major impediment to significant building and lot improvement or sales, as leaseholders hesitated to add value to something they didn’t own. That block will be gone now, Corcoran said.
Katahdin Timberlands workers will need several months to determine which lots will be included in the first group to be offered for sale and then prepare them, McKeague said. The landowner will decide which lots to offer, determine the fair market values, prepare offers for leaseholders and then notify qualified lessees individually. Qualified lessees are those in good standing with an active lease, McKeague said.
The company is undertaking the sale at the orders of its parent owner, Brookfield Asset Management, and its desire to invest in greater moneymaking ventures, McKeague said.
“This decision should not be interpreted to mean that Brookfield intends to divest other holdings in the area. For example, Brookfield intends to maintain its ownership position in Acadian Timber, which owns Katahdin Forest Management LLC, for the foreseeable future,” McKeague wrote in the letter to leaseholders.
Follow BDN writer Nick Sambides Jr. on Twitter at @NickSam2BDN.
Get ready for some disputes over property lines. The use of modern equipment in surveying often produces different blaze lines and pin locations.
I saw a survey report a few years back where one of the instructions was “N a distance of one cigarette’s mule ride”. No joke. Wonder how you translate that into modern survey equipment.
What really gets interesting is when property in back of the camp road is offered for sale. Most commonly the camp lot lines are projected back across the road.If you have 6 lots in a cove it gets interesting as the lines will intersect “up back.” Parking lots that have existed for half a century can be on someone else’s property very quickly.
Awesome. That beats my best — “Beginning at a point ten wagon wheels distant from where I now stand…”
They have already been surveyed sometime ago.
That’s a good thing if the lines are agreeable to everyone involved. I’ve found that lines and pins that were notched and set before the use of modern equipment often don’t match the lines set today. If one leasee thinks the line is off, that brings into question all of the pins on that shore. The worse scenario is when a camp or an out building have been placed on the neighbors line-It Happens.
What about the people who have camps on islands?
Don’t survey in the Spring, you’ll get a smaller lot! (just kidding) We don’t have any islands on my lake, but if you are the only camp on the island there should be no problems. If you have neighbors there should be nothing unusual either. Pins are normally placed at the high water levels at the shore and also at each corner of the lot. The yellow plastic cap (if there is one) on the pin will name the last company to survey that piece of property. Knowing how to read a blaze line is helpfull as well. There is a lot of good information on line concerning this subject.
There are setbacks with any structure. If your too close LURC will make you remove it or give a variance. The camp cannot be sold without this being addressed.
“Grandfathered”= legal nonconforming if it existed ” as is” prior to LURC inception in the early ’70’s.
Your right to a point. I was just involved with this same issue and helped move some structures. There has been a lot of “modifications” since the early seventies to many camps.
Agreed, and I’m sure some of those “modifications” were made without a permit from the LURC, also.
Word to the wise. Get your financing, the bank will perform a mortgage loan inspection and do not involve LURC in any way.
Where are all the people who say this type of development will starve the wood industry of timber?
You really can’t be from northern Maine ! Anyone from up this way knows most of these camps have been there for 50 years plus !
The Qumby park is mostly cut over but that didn’t stop the land grabbers from whining.
There’s a Quimby “park”?
Unlike Quimby, Katahdin Timberlands has offered to sell the camp lots ! Quimby kicked the people out and burned down the camps thats been there for Generations and locked up the land !
Her land to lock up as she wishes.
My next door neighbor can’t have chickens in their yard, Whats with that???
And we pay her taxes, take away her tree growth and watch her whine.
How are you paying her taxes? and tree growth is a legal tax deduction, (One that a certain candidate, and State Treasurer surely takes advantage of) I’m sure that there are plenty of people in the Nocket area that utilize this deduction. Your comment is very anticipated, and pretty much in accurate. What in the world makes you think that someone else pays her taxes?, does someone else pay your property taxes? Oh, my bad, that’s right, your from the land of the chosen few, the land where the state of Maine subsidizes a couple of towns. You’re special.
Rus: The Tree Growth Tax Law gives a reduction in taxes to advocate and promote keeping land in forest production, the key word being “production.” Any tax break, or reduction to one group shifts the burden of revenues that needs to be raised to other sources, or other taxpayers, thus others pick up the shift or burden of reductions provided to the taxpayer receiving the reduction.
Two wrong do not make a right, the State Treasurer along with Quimby are shifting taxes to other taxpayers without meeting the requirement of keeping their land in forest production. The State Treasurer is shifting the burden to other taxpayers in his town, Quimby is shifting it to other non-tree growth land owners in the unorganized territory.
And in both the cases you refer to, what the landowners are doing is perfectly legal.
The laws of unintended consequences.
This is what happens when the Almighty politicians start deciding who gets what when it comes to taxes and tax breaks.
The first politician to rule in this country that offered a subsidy of any form to achieve a certain agenda should have been burned at the stake.
No, this is not legal. Yes, it is legal to put your land into Tree Growth, but by not keeping the land in forest production is against the law. What these people do is lie by saying they will follow what this law is for, and then not doing it.
What people must do with their land in tree growth depends on their management plan. The guidelines under the law for that are very broad and should be. There has been no evidence that anyone has been lying about how they manage their land in accordance with their plans, including either Bruce Polequin or Roxanne Quimby.
CP, I understand the ramifications of the law and it’s requirements. Tree Growth is subjective to production, however, it is not specific to what constitutes production. I believe, that you can have a certain amount of acerage, and harvest a tenth of it, and still get the tax benefit on all of your acreage.
It’s sort of, as I call it, “the Don Hall effect”. Does a Christmas tree business qualify for Farmland, or does he or she qualify for Tree growth, or is it both? I know that this loop hole has been closed, but there are others.
My point to that particular poster was: his insinuation that the taxpayers from Maine are paying her property taxes, they are not. I have no idea if she has any tax shelters such as Tree Growth or not, however, the area feels that they control the land, not the legal owner, and you and I both know that this is far from the truth. And neither of us know as to if she is utilizing these tax benefits or not. The State Treasurer, has reporting requirements, Roxanne Quimby is not involved in public service, it’s much harder to discern her situation. For one thing, she owns property in several towns, and in two counties, I don’t think that it’s fair to assume something that is unknown.
There is no requirement to harvest some specific fraction of land in tree growth. Tree growth by its nature is very long term. There may or may not be harvesting on any or all of the land within any ten year period of the management plans. What must be done is specified in the owners’ individual management plan for each ten year period. Christmas trees and many other uses qualify as long term commercial use of land under tree growth. The requirements are very broad, were intended to be, and should be for this current use tax assessment program.
The question about Quimby arises because she has openly boasted that she is a preservationist out to exploit Federal power to impose permanent eco-system restoration and opposes commercial use she is trying to politically prevent forever. But that doesn’t mean that she isn’t temporarily “managing” her land in accordance with tree growth program requirements while she seeks to permanently impose their opposite. She may be in technical compliance despite the hypocrisy but it’s not hard to see why people resent her for it.
But Rusjan is also right that there has been nothing reported on whether Quimby is even in the tree growth program. The presumption is that she is because her land (at least most of it) was previously used for timber cutting and it seems unlikely that she would have taken it out of tree growth to pay higher taxes (which would be the case even in the ‘open space’ classification), but that isn’t proof.
In any event, Rusjan is also right that no one is “paying her taxes for her”. Quimby has done a lot of damage in Maine, but she isn’t imposing costs on government for schools and other ‘services’ for land she is preserving and has no moral obligation to pay for them through taxes on that land, and has no legal obligation to pay any taxes not on her tax bill.
There is no evidence that either of them is not meeting the requirements of the tree growth law and neither is shifting his tax burden to other taxpayers by not paying what he doesn’t have to. Tax burdens are imposed by government, not by landowners not being bilked for more taxes than they already are.
No land in tree growth is incurring costs of government services any more than assets you have in your checking account or retirement fund. No one is paying taxes for any alleged landowner’s “burden” which some want to impose because he doesn’t pay taxes he doesn’t have to and has no moral obligation to pay. All of these slogans about landowners not paying an alleged “fair share” or allegedly making “others” pay are political demagoguery with a premise that the government has a moral claim on whatever we have.
I might have guessed you’d be in favor of continuing to give tax breaks to people who neither need nor deserve them. If the state treasurer’s exemption is so legitimate, why hasn’t he come forward with his management plan – you know, the one that supposedly has been in place for how many years?
Other people’s financial records are none of your business. Land management plans are private. None of us owes you an explanation of the taxes we pay, the taxes we don’t pay because we don’t have to, or what you claim we “deserve” or “need”. Other people’s affairs are none of your business. Get your oppressive hands out of other people’s lives.
you just got burned.
I was responding to another poster, I was not implicating or assuming that Roxanne gets Tree Growth credits, I do not know if she does or doesn’t, and quite frankly, neither do you. None of us knows whether or not she allows any sort of production, we don’t know, because it’s not our land.
What I do know, is what has transpired in the last year or so. The people of the area seem to think that they get to pick and choose who does what with their own land, and that’s not the way it is. How would you like if I told you that you cannot build a dog house in your backyard, because your neighbor doesn’t like it? But, that restriction applies only to you, Mr. Jones down the road doesn’t have a problem with a dog house in his neighbor’s yard, so it’s allowed. That’s not comprehensive planning, that’s discriminatory land use regulation, You watch.
When someone wants to give their land to the federal government for the sole purpose to have them take over 3.2 million acres of private land by eminent domain, YES WE DO HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY ABOUT IT !!
watch she will buy them up
wow I didnt even think of that… I almost rather have the yuppies buy them up instead of quimby.
But Plum Creek can not do what they want with their land??
Plum Creek pretty much got what they wanted, due mainly to Greenville’s business interests, maybe some regulatory enhancements, and other development area issues, but they have got pretty much what they wanted.
Go to Russell Mtn, in Monson/Blanchard……you can see their handywork. That does not mean that I’m opposed to what they are doing, what I am opposed to, is the manner in which they did it. For instance, their area representative was Luke Muzzy, who happens to be the owner of ….guess what?…..the largest real estate agency in that area. Funny how that works isn’t it?
The only land grabbers out there that i know of is Quimby / Restore and the National Park Service !
Right ON !!
If it weren’t for the national park service there would be no acadia, yellowstone, Yosemite, smokey mountain’s for people to enjoy either.
The National Park Service and its boosters are responsible for seizing the private property from a cumulative of thousands of people at those parks. The people whose property was taken from them and their heirs cannot enjoy what what was theirs. Their rights were cynically trampled. At Acadia this is still happening and Quimby boasts that she is helping the National Park Service to do it as part of what she euphemistically calls her planned “gift”.
The largest landowner in Maine is here
http://bangor-launch.newspackstaging.com/2011/10/12/news/state/maine%E2%80%99s-newest-big-time-landowner-is-also-the-nation%E2%80%99s-largest-landowner/
He is a land speculator, and will sell it for whatever, as long as it is a profit.
From the article: “Malone pointed out that his interest in land conservation was well known and that the purchase of the Maine acreage ‘will further enhance these efforts.’ Malone continues to manage the land as a sustainable working forest.”
Malone was (and still may be) on the board of director of The Nature Conservancy.
You don’t have to be from northern Maine to understand the nature of developers. You don’t even have to be from Maine to understand comprehensive planning and directing development. You don’t have to be an administrative genius to understand that it’s going to be a land use free for all.
And you don’t have to know much to post the way you do.
I see that you are living up to your name.
Please explain why it is going to be a land use free for all? You are still just lipping off without knowledge of anything.
Permitting sduties passed off to counties with no staff, no experience, and no knowledge of what is already in place. People are going to be doing whatever they bloody feel like with utter disregard for consequences to the water, the land, the wildlife or the neighbors. The result will be a complete mess.
This is another gratuitous smear from a viro activist with a long record of attacking private property owners.
This is another gratuitous smear from an anarchist who sees no value to anything unless he can put a dollar sign in front of it.
The wild accusations that “Earthling” made against property owners are the smear. This self-denoted ‘earthling’ creature has a long record of that.
The proper function of government protecting the rights of the individual, including property rights, is not “anarchism”; it is the opposite of anarchism. Viro leftists like the “Earthling” creature think that opposition to their oppressive controls is “anarchy”, which tells us a lot about what they are. Protection against theft does not mean that “everything has a dollar sign in front of it”. Taking those things that don’t belong to you is called “stealing”. It is not justified by viro nature worship.
I used to be the Comprehensive Planning Director of my hometown. I will say this: People don’t want anyone to tell them what they can, and cannot do with their land. But by god, they will scream and shout when someone does something with their own land that they don’t like. Much like the Nockets have done, hence….a land use free for all.
as long as we follow her rules.
From the article: ~”
Almost all of the lots already have camps on them ranging from seasonal to year-round residences.”~
So if Quimby had proposed turning her land into a park 50 years ago, she would have been OK with everyone?
I guess things have changed.
Still crying?
Good luck with that.
This is different. For 20 years Quimby’s plan for her land has been to turn it over to the Federal Gov., just as she has done in the Acadia area. Once the Feds own it, they can add tracts of land solely at their discretion as well as create buffer zones, disrupting existing industry, homes and camps. In other words, once the Federal Gov. moves in, with a foothold, there will be no public input whatsoever on expansion.
The National Park Service accepts critical public comments when it has to, and then does what it and its boosters want.
20 years ago, Roxanne Quimby didn’t own the land. She had a shop in Guilford and shipping goods out of it, and a warehouse in Cambridge. I know, because my son’s mother helped with the books at Burt’s Bee’s, my son is 18 years old. Nice try, but not really.
Perhaps I should have worded it differently. Quimby has supported the plan of RESTORE the North Woods for a 3.2 million acre National Park.
RESTORE the North Woods was founded in 1992.BANGOR DAILY NEWS July 10 2001 ~”‘Quimby, 50, is a member of RESTORE’s board of directors. Like a modern-day Percival Baxter, she hopes to nudge the park from dream to reality by buying up the land herself.”~
Percival Baxter, granted the land to the people of Maine. If Roxanne Quimby had been 30 years earlier, you would have accepted it, just has you did Baxter’s land grant. Don’t fool yourself, because you aren’t fooling me.
I’ve never read of a couple of town whine and cry so much as these two. You whine because the paper company left, then you whine because there are no jobs, then you cry when the state intervenes, and then you moan when someone has a different idea what to do with their own land. And then,….when you are bailed out by the state, you say…….its not our dump (even though it’s been there for decades, while you all were cashing in) I’m sick of the Nockets!! There are other areas of the state that need attention, the aged saying applies…..you don’t get something for nothing. Have fun, meanwhile there are other towns and municipalities that are in just as dire need as yours……….have fun.
Attempts at Federal takeovers of private property in Maine have been opposed since long before Quimby began trying to buy government policy.
Lame comment. Does not begin to compare with other potential losses.
It’s 1200 acres not a big timber tract.
You can’t cut most of the shore frontage anyway so no loss for the timber industry.
Where are you coming from these lots already have camps on them and have nothing to do with available timber.
What wood industry?
The one that is one of the largest industries in the state.
Bit like being the youngest patient in the nursing home at this point.
DIG DEEP INTO YOUR POCKETS & HERE THEY COME !!!!!!! Lets see who’s got money
Isn’t this basically the same as Plum Creek in the Greenville area has been trying to do for years but has just run in to one roadblock after another. Some thing smells rotten .
Same camps same spot. Now they will have to buy the lots as opposed to leasing them. This is not a new development.
Of course it is, now people will invest in there camps and homes knowing that now they own the land it sits on.
That is if they can afford the land their camps sit on, whats the price tag? or the fair market value?
My lot on Cedar Lake was $44,000 in 2008. .58 of an acre. Mine was part of the Weber land deal that included lakefront in Lincoln, Cedar Lake (about 11 miles outside of Millinocket) and Ebeemee pond, now known as Ebeemee Township just outside of Brownville. Some lots were more, some less. I’m guessing that those with an unobstructed view of Katahdin will be more than those without a view.
Many times they go by shore frontage and not the size of the lot. It all depends on how the lot is set up. I think if you have a lot of shore frontage, you will be paying a good amount.
First of all, they are going to have to pay many tens of thoudsands of dollars for the land. I don’t believe many regional owners will have much left over in the way of do more to their buildings. The economy just hasn’t maintained the income level needed to do much. The deal will make camps easier to sell by getting rid of the uncertainty but not likely to locals.
People, it is not like someone has to come up with cash! Look what many people did when the same thing happened at cedar lake, they borrowed from their own 401k. Many of these places are paid for, so they can take out a loan on their property, take out home equity loans, etc. The local banks and credit unions work well with their members, they do help them get the loans they need. Maybe not in larger cities, but loans in small towns are not hard to get. Yes, some people will sell, and at a nice profit. I think you underestimate the owners and what they will do to keep their piece of paradise.
Most of these local owners are retired and probably do not have the income to take out loans.
I am sure many will want to keep there camps. I’ve already been there when my parents had to buy their lot at Schoodic long before Cedar lake. And there were many who couldn’t keep their slice of paradise. The towns just don’t employ the higher wage workers they once did. Many of the younger children can’t afford the prices some of these camps will command. Using retirement funds would work as long as you realize it is an asset you may have to sell in the future to fund that retirement. And no one gives you a loan to fund your retirement.
The people who couldn’t keep their camps did not own the land. This change in policy will allow them to so they can keep what they do own in the future (as your parents hopefully can now). Those who can’t afford to buy out the lease most likely could not afford to continue a lease at market value either. Not being able to afford something of value to you because of low income in a rotten economy is not caused by this lease conversion. Those who buy the land they are now leasing will have more security, not less.
No one will be able to sell at a nice profit, because the leases require them to remove their building from the lot at the termination of the lease. If they don’t remove it, they forfeit it to the landowner. And I think you’ll find that only a very small number of the current lease holders will be able to come up with the 200K or more that the landowner is going to want for the lots. Most of them will go to out of state people who will knock down the old camps and build a mcmansion, and the people who have had the camp in their family for three and four generations will get nothing at all.
Absolutely not a new development. The land was divided decades ago when the leases were set up, and the camps were built before you were born.
It basically has nothing to do with Plum Creek. For years the paper companies leased lots for seasonal cottages/camps. Most of these parcels have had family summer camps for 50 years or more. The landowner is offering the campers a chance to own the lots their camps sit on. Most campers will be happy to buy the lots as long as the price is fair. Nothing rotten here.
These lots have been in existence for decades, long before LURC came along, so they are all grandfathered. Plum Creek is all new lots, over 1,000 of them. Not the same thing by a long shot.
This area needs a shot in the arm. I hope this story has many happy endings.
And that’s exactly what it will be, an economic “shot” that will last maybe 5 – 7 years and then, like an addict, the region will need another “shot.
Unfortunately I think you’re right. I worry that a lot of the current lease owners who are local won’t be able to stay. When they’re gone those simple camps will get torn down and big year-round ones will go up. That would likely drive up the cost of camp ownership beyond what most Mainers can afford.
75,000-400,000 how many 75k camps are there really? prob a small handful already spoken for by friends of the lumber company or land planners the rest will be big $$ and just going to be sold to yuppies from NY/NJ/CT yippie.
Economic improvement is not an “addiction”. It benefits people. A productive economy does not require “shots”. The local economies are bad because government taxes and controls keep them that way, which has turned Maine into the status of a third world country. If those policies don’t change then these lease conversions will not solve the problem and people will generally continue to be kept down. No “shots” will help that.
Guess that is better than a shot in the foot.
>>>>
The leases state that the lots will be sold for the state appraised value. That does not include the camps, because the current lease holders owners already own the camps. Our lease is 5 grand a year and has gone up 250 percent in 8 years time! I look forward to this opportunity.
If not, my peeps will……”North Mass Woods”…Has a nice ring…
Of course you will and all your carpetbagger friends…..
I’ve already know one of your kind who intends to take full advantage. It’s not much to be proud of in reality. But it is what you folks have always done best.
Some beautiful, beautiful land on the lakes with unbelievable mountain views and great fishing.
I know that many camps on leased land on Ambajejus Lake date from the 1960s when mill workers took leases, cleared trees and built cabins. Those people are retired now and on fixed incomes. Unless their children buy, many will be changing hands to ‘new people’, I think.
Good? Bad? I don’t know. Different for sure.
Fishing and the quiet needed to catch fish will be replaced by waterskiing and the loud boats that scare the fish into deeper water. Progress. Hah.
What is keeping them from waterskiing and “loud boats” right now?
Josey, Earthling has no reality to life in Maine ! Thats such a joke….”Fishing and the quiet needed to catch fish will be replaced by waterskiing and the loud boats that scare the fish into deeper water ”
lmao
You think the rich out-of-staters that end up with these places know or care about hunting and fishing? People who use the woods for traditional activities will be pushed further and further to the side in favor of city folks who put no value at all on deer or trout, like my friend msscv on here.
Stop smearing people you know nothing about.
Nothing other than the fact that the majority of the current lease holders use their camps for fishing and hunting. The new crowd will be a very different sort, lots of money and no idea of how to enjoy the lakes and the woods other than by pounding around at 70 miles per in whatever new machine they can find. Hunting and fishing will be lost arts in a few years.
You don’t know anything about the people who may own the property in the future or why they may buy it. Your constant trashing of people you know nothing about with your stream of negative comments on anything that is not forced preservationism is disgusting.
Nothing stays the same forever. Sometimes land is kept in the family and sometimes it is sold for lack of interest in a new generation — or sold by people forced to sell because of taxes, but the tax problem is not caused by the conversion of these leases. The importance of the news article is that people with uncertain futures under a lease now have a way to own the property they enjoy, and the subsequent freedom to keep it or sell it after they invest their effort and resources into improving it. That is very good. That different people own it over time is “different”, but part of life.
No mention of exhorbitant gate fees like the North country thief (North Maine Woods, Inc. headed by Albro Cowperthwaite) charges people who visit.
“exhorbitant gate fees”??
You have a problem paying $6 to use someones land and roads?
Gives LURC something to do… Don’t forget to bring gifts, things move faster that way.
Say goodbye to most of the longtime lease holders, they will never be able to afford the 200K plus that most of these will be going for. LURC is dead, you should know that, you’ve been drooling over it ever since the first rumors started. Well enjoy your harvest, this is only the first crop. Higher taxes, longtime residents forced out, and a rich and faceless corporation getting richer. I expect that’s everyone’s vision of the future, since it’s obviously yours, and you’re obviously so much more intelligent than lowlife like me.
“Earthling3” has no idea who will be able to buy out their lease, with or without a loan replacing the lease payments.
LURC is not “dead”; the viros blocked reform.
Higher taxes are caused by the left’s own policies and are hurting all of us as they drive people off their own land and out of the state. That is not caused by people being able to buy and own their own property.
“Earthling3” is constantly attacking private property rights with his gratuitous smears and has no credibility.
Hi, buddy, I was wondering where you were. Thanks for the vote of confidence. Apparently you haven’t been paying attention to the economy. Those “$2500/year” leases turning into $1500/month mortgages are not exactly easy to absorb for the ordinary family. Most of those camps have been in the same family for three or four generations, and the only reason they can keep them is because the leases were so inexpensive. You know this as well as I do. LURC is quite dead, it is being replaced by something called the Land Use Planning Commission, which is as toothless a tiger as you could have ever wished for in your anarchistic dream world. Higher taxes related to this issue are going to be caused by increased property valuations driven by the inevitable replacement of traditional camps by inappropriate and hideous mcmansions owned by wealthy out-of-staters. I’m sure the higher taxes you refer to are caused by your delusional imaginings of the “left’s own policies” and nothing to do with the need to pay for the right wing’s tax breaks and subsidizations for their pet corporations and ultra-rich campaign donors. And I think you have your own credibility issues to deal with before you attempt to gratuitously smear mine yet again. Have a lovely evening.
Taxes are high because of government spending, not because anyone is not paying even more than they are now. A lack of a higher tax is
not a “cost”. The money does not belong to you.
You know nothing about the many different people who may own the land being converted from leases or how any of them may finance a purchase, nor is it any of your business. The policy allowing them to buy the property so they own it themselves if they want it is a good thing. Stop smearing people with your constant stream of insults and political ranting about “rich corporations”. You are irrelevant and off the topic. Comments like ‘LURC is dead’ are simply stupid; they changed the name and did nothing to reduce the restrictions on property owners.
LURC always was a toothless tiger, most people didnt know it until now.
omg quimby will gooble them all up
Doubtful. Her land purchases in the Maine Woods are typically prearranged with timber companies, many times coinciding with just after the clear cutting process. The opportunity to buy never hits public advertising. The process is usually kept secret from the public until the actual sale.
So the cat’s finally out of the bag about the rarely mentioned land
Brookfield was given by the bankruptcy court to run a paper company.
470,000 acres free to keep the mills running and today valued at over
$470,000,000. And they’re crying about putting up a $16,000,000 bond to
close the landfill. What a joke. After they rake in the profits from
these camp lots I don’t think the people of Maine will find this joke
very funny.
This is one huge reason that Bankruptcy Judge’s all need to be able to read both actual and deferred balance sheet’s. You can bet the farm that those 470 K acres were never posted to the actual balance sheet’s list of actual asset’s since B-field didn’t have to actually buy them. If they weren’t actually bought, that would have required actual cash to change hand’s, then they didn’t have to be listed as a cash asset. They could be listed as a deferred asset, with no cash value, since they weren’t being actually used as a part of their actual daily balance sheet. But now since B-field is in the need for both money, and wanting to get out of Maine since Maine’s apparently run out of patience with their tactic’s, they suddenly need the $ 470 K +. I’m just wondering if the land sales tax and transfer fee’s are ever gonna show up on the State balance sheet’s ? Paulie wants to go improve his image then this is one horse he had better start riding. If not then we all know exactly where he stands. Transparency, isin’t it great ?
Wondering how many wind turbines will be popping up around these lakeside lots?
This is a great opportunity for owners of camps on the leased lands! – now only if Nature Conservancy would do the same!!!!
Only a FOOL would build a Camp or Home on a leased lot. Especially when there are thousands of wooded lots for sale all over the state.
Well smarty pants, looks like the gamble is going to pay off for many people, who is the fool now?
This will be interesting to watch. Prior to the banking collapse and restructuring the majority of camps (and camp lots) in Maine were paid for using equity loans from folks primary homes. That source of cash is hard to get now. If that still holds true, most of the camps would need to be converted to year round use to become a primary home or sold to people with large amounts of cash on-hand. Bank lending has changed a lot over the past few years.
It may be that a lot of the simple ‘traditional’ camps will get converted to year-round use and go to out-of-state buyers. It seems pretty clear that the time when a modest income would still provide for a Maine family to have a simple camp is long past.
Sad for the families who leased these lots for decades, but can’t afford to purchase them.
It is sad for everyone being kept down by Maine’s destruction of its own economy through the progressive imposition of taxes and controls driving people, business and investment out of the state. That has nothing to do with this offer to sell previously leased land. Private property owned by more individuals who no longer can only lease is a benefit to them.
You kinda missed the point there, pal.
You “missed the point”. You don’t bother to look at why some people can’t afford to buy what they want. It is not caused by the conversion of these leases, and the sadness over living in a trashed economy is not restricted to that.
So the fact that land which would have sold for less than ten thousand dollars twenty years ago is now being offered for more than 200 thousand has nothing to do with it?
Most of these lots will not go for anywhere near 200,000. The majority will go between 40 and 80 thousand.
>>>><<<<
It’s a no brainer money making scheme for a future profit…. they say they are selling to boost the area economy, well partly true,but the real deal is after it’s all said and done… alot of out of staters will buy up property and put in very expensive camps/homes and that will increase property rates(fair market value). so two or three years down the road when the second batch is put on the market the value will have increased tenfold. slowly we are being taken over by the out of staters. maine vacationland. I see a sad future in maine of mainers being landscapers and house servants to out of staters.
Just what we need! MORE high-end camps that no Mainer could ever afford and if they can the taxes will eat up their annual income so fast they won’t have enough to eat or heat their home in the winter.
Not to mention the new tax bill they want to implement onto those with second homes. I’m sure they’ll lump these high-end camps into that somehow!
So you don’t like the idea of the owners being able to purchase their lots? Many people would rather purchase the lot instead of paying the lease fee for the next 40 years. Many of these leases are $2500/yr, I would rather that go into my ownership of the land.
Ownership is great but the reality of an average working family being able to buy the land is doubtful.
The outrageously high property taxes are not a justification to prevent private ownership by those who can still afford it, and the destructive government policies destroying the economy is no justification to resent those who still have something left despite it.
And it’s just tough crap for the people who are forced to abandon (not sell, abandon) the camps that have been in their families for generations.
People leasing property do not own it. It has not been owned by them for generations and they are not being forced to “abandon it”. They now have the option to buy it, which is to their advantage. Radical viros like “earthling” don’t want people to be able to own land; they want rule by bureaucratic control.
The radical preservationist “Earthling” has a long record of attacking private property ownership and seemingly cannot comment without personally attacking and smearing people he misrepresents.
You’re slipping back into your old habit of making up “facts” to support your anarchistic tendencies. I have never said anything to indicate opposition to property ownership, and the regulations I have spoken in favor of are necessary and reasonable to keep people from trashing the very things that make their property desirable in the first place. I absolutely agree about the difference between ownership and leasing, and I think it’s foolish to spend money developing property you don’t own. Nevertheless things were not always that way, and the current generation of lease holders is being forced out in many cases, through no fault of their own. there is nothing either illegal or immoral about it, but I can still feel sympathy for those being forced out – something you apparently cannot do because you’re too busy using any excuse you can find to rant about your “radical viros” and government conspiracies.
Everyone who enjoys the freedom and security of personal ownership will benefit from being able to buy the land under his camp or other building instead of leasing it. This is a great improvement allowing more individuals to own land and should be encouraged everywhere.
Everywhere I have seen this happen the majority of the lease holders have been forced out because they can’t afford the $200K to $400K price tag the land owner puts on the property. There is no denying that the landowner has a right to sell their property, but that doesn’t make it any easier for the people who have to abandon their camps.
The land values range from $75,000, not $200,000. People who have long had the use of someone else’s property without having to pay what it is worth should be grateful for the gift even if some are disappointed that they cannot afford to buy it. We all would like to have things we cannot afford, that does not make private ownership bad. Now the leaseholders have the option to buy it and eliminate the uncertainty under a lease, which is to their benefit. Calling that “forced abandonment” of something they don’t own is a bizarre notion.
The “Earthling” constantly attacks private property rights in comments on articles and repeatedly personally smears those who reject his radical preservationism and nature worship. On this page he has been viciously attacking future owners of the leased land and now pretends it is only “sympathy” for those he speculates can’t afford to buy land. That some people cannot afford to buy land they want is not caused by this lease conversion opportunity, they couldn’t afford to pay market value for lease payments indefinitely into the future either.
While I agree that ideally the lease holders should have the opportunity to buy these properties, the reality is that only a small percentage will be able to afford them. The leases that I have seen sold over the last three or four years have all been small lots, only an acre or so, and most have sold for well over 200K, some as high as 400K. The lease holders that cannot afford the lots are forced to either physically move their camp, or else abandon it when the land is sold. If you’ve ever been out to see some of these older camps, you know that it’s virtually impossible to move many of them due to local topography, poor roads, and other physical restrictions at the sites. Personally, I think it’s foolish to invest significant money in placing improvements on property you don’t own, but things were different a few generations back. It saddens me to see people forced out of their traditional family retreat. I’m not saying they are forced to abandon the land they don’t own, but they are being forced to abandon the camp they do own, and to abandon a part of their family heritage. I never said private ownership was a bad thing.
Stampede of flatlanders beating each other over the head trying to get the best lots. Soon to come golf courses, tennis courts and association fees. Sebago Lake North. Good luck locals.
Just what we need. More flatlanders running things, jacking up association fees in the process. I’d call it Winnepesake North. It has a more Mass feel to it.
No one is “beating” anyone over the head and you know nothing about the people you snarl at with such venom.
Whether or not someone else likes tennis or golf is not your concern. No one can impose a “fee” on you for owning property somewhere near something you don’t use.
Im wondering if the Town Council and Gene have met to try to come up with a plan to try to ANNEX this land once again.