government land?

FUNKY PIONEER · #21 11/04/06, 11:12 AM

Land patents are no longer given on mineral claims.

fantasymaker · #22 11/04/06, 11:39 AM

[QUOTE=SteveD(TX)]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fantasymaker

You are aware, of course, that real estate has typically three (3) approaches to value. You are claiming negative value strictly from an Income Approach. Most raw land, in theory, has "negative" value from an income standpoint. But Market Value is defined as "the most probable price".....that someone will pay for real estate. If you are saying that the "most probable" price is a negative number, you know nothing at all about real estate. But that of course, is already obvious. Everyone who will pay someone to take your land off your hands, let us know.

And I know what a "patent" is. And all of you, who have received unencumbered fee title to valuable land using a claim that was converted into a patent that converted into a deed, please post your stories here. We really do want to know how you are getting this "free" land.

True about the three values
But going back to what I said.I was involved in a farm program that was supposed to sell the property for its value as ag land
So the other values were by law prohibited from being concidered.
For you to make a construct that alleges somthing that I didnt say and then say I know nothing about about realestate because of that shows a lot about yourself
As for land that some one will pay you to take there is such land available, If you will agree to take it and pay me a small fee for finding it I will glady help you to it.
As for those who have recived deed decending from patent I think that you will find that is the situation with most privately held land in the USA but it would have hardly been free to most deed holders

Shadow · #23 11/04/06, 09:47 PM

[QUOTE=fantasymaker]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveD(TX)

True about the three values
But going back to what I said.I was involved in a farm program that was supposed to sell the property for its value as ag land
So the other values were by law prohibited from being concidered.
For you to make a construct that alleges somthing that I didnt say and then say I know nothing about about realestate because of that shows a lot about yourself
As for land that some one will pay you to take there is such land available, If you will agree to take it and pay me a small fee for finding it I will glady help you to it.
As for those who have recived deed decending from patent I think that you will find that is the situation with most privately held land in the USA but it would have hardly been free to most deed holders

I need about one million dollars so how much free land do I have to take to ge the money, and of course I would give fantsymake 25 percent, that will leave me with 3/4 of a mill. OK

stanb999 · #24 11/05/06, 09:05 AM

[QUOTE=SteveD(TX)]

Quote:

Originally Posted by fantasymaker

You are aware, of course, that real estate has typically three (3) approaches to value. You are claiming negative value strictly from an Income Approach. Most raw land, in theory, has "negative" value from an income standpoint. But Market Value is defined as "the most probable price".....that someone will pay for real estate. If you are saying that the "most probable" price is a negative number, you know nothing at all about real estate. But that of course, is already obvious. Everyone who will pay someone to take your land off your hands, let us know.

And I know what a "patent" is. And all of you, who have received unencumbered fee title to valuable land using a claim that was converted into a patent that converted into a deed, please post your stories here. We really do want to know how you are getting this "free" land.

I think you are kinda missing the point on the land he speaking.
He is trying to say that the covents on the land are so bad that you can't farm it. But due to deed restrictions the only legal use of the land is to farm it. So now you have a "farm" that must be farmed but can't be farmed. Hence you just lose money.

fantasymaker · #25 11/05/06, 01:00 PM

another thing to rember is this is just raw land you have to clear it and then develope it into a field from there that is a substantial expence

hoofinitnorth · #26 11/05/06, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hillsidedigger

I have read of programs whereby state land in the Mat-Su region in Alaska is for sale for as little as $20,000 for 320 acres, sure is tempting to me to find out more about. No electricty and limited access, I imagine, farmable land but only with great effort?

Not necessarily! While Minnesota claims to be the "Land of 10,000 Lakes" we have way more than that and the swamps to match! Much of the areas for sale, even those close to power or roads, are SWAMP! Swamps that are regularly FLOODED. Unless you can farm something there that is sustainable year 'round in this climate, you're SOL.

hoofinitnorth · #27 11/05/06, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveD(TX)

"negative value"??

Are you saying that the seller would have to pay the buyer in order for the buyer to acquire ownership? A unique concept for me. And I've been a real estate appraiser for 23 years.

The government's first priority was never to make a profit! They were intent on starting a farming industry up here. They also tried this in the early 1900s and relocated Midwestern farmers to Southcentral Alaska.

BTW, appraiser here too.

hoofinitnorth · #28 11/05/06, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SteveD(TX)

You are aware, of course, that real estate has typically three (3) approaches to value. You are claiming negative value strictly from an Income Approach. Most raw land, in theory, has "negative" value from an income standpoint. But Market Value is defined as "the most probable price".....that someone will pay for real estate. If you are saying that the "most probable" price is a negative number, you know nothing at all about real estate. But that of course, is already obvious. Everyone who will pay someone to take your land off your hands, let us know.

Negative value is not limited to the Income Approach (but of course is most popular there and it's easiest to discuss there).

If you can't reasonably use the property, as fantasymaker describes through the extreme limitations placed on the allowable uses of the property, you have a damned hard time selling it. That goes to both Income and Sales approaches to value.

Also, if you have sufficiently high holding costs (taxes, etc.), you may in fact pay someone to take it off your hands--or give it to someone (as in a will or a conservation easement or perhaps even a charitable donation). I do know of several situations where this "gift" accompanied a payment from the old owner to the new owner to cover some of the holding or using costs.

I'm not sure if it's been done up here but I do know of situations where if the land is NOT used at all or not used SUFFICIENTLY to satisfy the seller, the buyer/new owner may have to relinquish the land to the seller or make payments to the seller as penalties. This is more common in resource development, however, as in the case of undeveloped oil and gas leases.