Why did the aviation blogger receive a letter from the mayor's attorney stating the mayor was the lease holder?
Edited to correct who received the letter
Edited to correct who received the letter
It was the aviation blogger in the video linked in the OP that received the letter, not the pilot.Jsimonds58 said:
Why did the plane owner receive a letter from the mayor's attorney stating the mayor was the lease holder?
If they are, that's WAY below market. I would bet some cattle folks on this thread would love that kind of bargain.trouble said:
Thank you.
Are you really only paying $1/year?
cgdorn said:
I just heard about the stress claim from that blogger that is trying to sensationalize this to get clicks to their blog. That is hilarious.
That's not how it works, though.Rex Racer said:
IF it's only costing $1 per year, I don't see that as being crazy because it's not a guaranteed lease. Any rancher would only be able to use it as a temporary holding area because it could be yanked out from under them with 30 days notice. That makes the lease worth a lot less money than if it was a one year lease, for example.
True. But we don't know what the lease is costing.cslifer said:
I agree that the 30 day issue could lower the value of the lease, that being said I think we can all agree it is still worth more than 8 cents a month.
The savings on prime property taxes means they don't care if they're giving up $2000/year. Yes, they're missing out on $167/mo. by not leasing at the market rate. But on the other hand they can terminate the lease at the drop of a hat.cslifer said:
I agree that the 30 day issue could lower the value of the lease, that being said I think we can all agree it is still worth more than 8 cents a month.
Maybe. But the dollar lease in and of itself is not a big deal.trouble said:
Leasing it to the business associate of the mayor who was on the BBC when the property was purchased for well below market value esp if it wasn't offered to anyone else, is a big deal.
For one thing, you can get it for $1/year.Charpie said:
Why would anyone put a cattle breeding operation on leased land that can be vacated in 30 days?
If their main ranch is nearby and they just needed to run some cows in a separate pasture for a while, it's not risky at all.Jsimonds58 said:
Seems like a lot of risk to undertake
trouble said:
Leasing it to the business associate of the mayor who was on the BBC when the property was purchased for well below market value esp if it wasn't offered to anyone else, is a big deal.
I will offer up $2 a year. I mean, that's a steal and MORE money than the city is getting now.techno-ag said:For one thing, you can get it for $1/year.Charpie said:
Why would anyone put a cattle breeding operation on leased land that can be vacated in 30 days?
Charpie said:I will offer up $2 a year. I mean, that's a steal and MORE money than the city is getting now.techno-ag said:For one thing, you can get it for $1/year.Charpie said:
Why would anyone put a cattle breeding operation on leased land that can be vacated in 30 days?