If they didn't shake down the plane owner, why did the press release bother to mention all the money lost because of the plane landing.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.
Plane update
169,011 Views |
1172 Replies |
Last: 6 mo ago by Hornbeck
Part of the story can be true without all of the story being true. Cattle could be stressed, money could be lost, that could be mentioned to the plane owner. He took it as a shakedown. It may not have been meant that way.Another Doug said:If they didn't shake down the plane owner, why did the press release bother to mention all the money lost because of the plane landing.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.
I believe the things you [Rafter D owner] wrote, and I appreciate that you brought facts to the discussion (although I do have my own doubts about the lease terms being ethical).
However, there is still room around your facts for another story line to be in play at the same time--one in which another party claims to be the lease owner, where he and his attorney contact the pilot directly, and demand a ransom payment for a man's plane.
However, there is still room around your facts for another story line to be in play at the same time--one in which another party claims to be the lease owner, where he and his attorney contact the pilot directly, and demand a ransom payment for a man's plane.
Parts of what he said are just not true, such as the ag exemption for taxes part. If part of your statement is proven to be false how much of the rest of it can be believed?
Are we sure that BBC is not required to pay property taxes?cslifer said:
Parts of what he said are just not true, such as the ag exemption for taxes part. If part of your statement is proven to be false how much of the rest of it can be believed?
They may not have to pay city taxes, but they most certainly have to pay ISD and county taxes
On brazoscad the land is listed as "taxable value $0" for all entities. It is a 501c which are exempt from property taxes. So yes.
nope
Edit thanks to CSlifer's post.Charpie said:
They may not have to pay city taxes, but they most certainly have to pay ISD and county taxes
Mr.Short-termMemory said:Part of the story can be true without all of the story being true. Cattle could be stressed, money could be lost, that could be mentioned to the plane owner. He took it as a shakedown. It may not have been meant that way.Another Doug said:If they didn't shake down the plane owner, why did the press release bother to mention all the money lost because of the plane landing.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.
This is one of the most reasonable takes so far. I agree.
More questionable "facts";
Dorn: City gets a tax write off for an Ag Exemption on the land.
Quick BCAD search says that's not true.
I thought Aggies didn't lie, cheat, or steal… *not valid in Brazos County
Dorn: City gets a tax write off for an Ag Exemption on the land.
Quick BCAD search says that's not true.
I thought Aggies didn't lie, cheat, or steal… *not valid in Brazos County
Yet the shakedown has not been denied.Mr.Short-termMemory said:Part of the story can be true without all of the story being true. Cattle could be stressed, money could be lost, that could be mentioned to the plane owner. He took it as a shakedown. It may not have been meant that way.Another Doug said:If they didn't shake down the plane owner, why did the press release bother to mention all the money lost because of the plane landing.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.
Oh the web of lies....
Did anyone else have a chance to lease this land for $1/year? I never heard about it, did anyone else?
And running cattle for a tax exemption... Maybe for the poster... not the BBC.
Here is what should have happened as I see it...
1) If a plane makes an emergency landing, get insurance information from all parties.
2) Let the plane owner remove the plane from your property
3) File and insurance claim, proving your cattle breeding has been damaged (may take a few months and a vet)
4) When the insurance turns you down (due to lack of evidence), sue
5) When the courts turn you down due to lack of evidence, then...
Other facts
The plane owner was contacted by the Mayor (and representative) who told him that he was the leasee and thus the true leasee was never contacted.
Our Mayor wanted to skip step 2-5 and go for extortion.
Have I missed anything?
Did anyone else have a chance to lease this land for $1/year? I never heard about it, did anyone else?
And running cattle for a tax exemption... Maybe for the poster... not the BBC.
Here is what should have happened as I see it...
1) If a plane makes an emergency landing, get insurance information from all parties.
2) Let the plane owner remove the plane from your property
3) File and insurance claim, proving your cattle breeding has been damaged (may take a few months and a vet)
4) When the insurance turns you down (due to lack of evidence), sue
5) When the courts turn you down due to lack of evidence, then...
Other facts
The plane owner was contacted by the Mayor (and representative) who told him that he was the leasee and thus the true leasee was never contacted.
Our Mayor wanted to skip step 2-5 and go for extortion.
Have I missed anything?
Hornbeck
Joined:
Aug 30, 2021
Posts:
3,668
How long do you want to ignore this user?
cslifer said:
On brazoscad the land is listed as "taxable value $0" for all entities. It is a 501c which are exempt from property taxes. So yes.
So the city basically has a tax free 501c3 non profit that exists for the sole purpose of land speculation? There might be a news story there.
It's possible the ag exemption was stated by mistake. However it does keep the grass "mowed" by having cattle on it, like he said.Hornbeck said:
More questionable "facts";
Dorn: City gets a tax write off for an Ag Exemption on the land.
Quick BCAD search says that's not true.
I thought Aggies didn't lie, cheat, or steal… *not valid in Brazos County
Mistake?
No no no.
He came in as an authority on the subject.
No no no.
He came in as an authority on the subject.
There sure seems to be a lot of "mistakes" all around here….
And lets not forget his cowboy is a thief that uses an alias.Hornbeck said:
There sure seems to be a lot of "mistakes" all around here….
And fertilized... And the BBC makes $10 a year... Now that is a bargain.techno-ag said:It's possible the ag exemption was stated by mistake. However it does keep the grass "mowed" by having cattle on it, like he said.Hornbeck said:
More questionable "facts";
Dorn: City gets a tax write off for an Ag Exemption on the land.
Quick BCAD search says that's not true.
I thought Aggies didn't lie, cheat, or steal… *not valid in Brazos County
A service that harvests hay would also keep it mowed...
Almost like some folks are having trouble keeping a narrative straight. How interesting
I'm still unclear as to who actually owns the land.
The fact that no taxes are paid on it certainly doesn't benefit the citizens of Brazos County.
This gives me an idea: I should start the First Church of the Spaghetti Monster and buy up several houses in Traditions, pay $0 taxes on, and lease out to my friends for $1 a month. Any takers? Trouble? You in?
Edit to add: There was a news story a while back about a local municipality bemoaning a lot of prime real estate being taken up by churches that don't pay their fair share of taxes. Now, we find out a municipality is doing it. This is just rich,
The fact that no taxes are paid on it certainly doesn't benefit the citizens of Brazos County.
This gives me an idea: I should start the First Church of the Spaghetti Monster and buy up several houses in Traditions, pay $0 taxes on, and lease out to my friends for $1 a month. Any takers? Trouble? You in?
Edit to add: There was a news story a while back about a local municipality bemoaning a lot of prime real estate being taken up by churches that don't pay their fair share of taxes. Now, we find out a municipality is doing it. This is just rich,
Sounds like an excellent idea count me in
Everyone on this thread is coming in as an authority on this subject.maroon barchetta said:
Mistake?
No no no.
He came in as an authority on the subject.
I think we are taxpayers, wanting some answers and getting half-truths and lies...Mr.Short-termMemory said:Everyone on this thread is coming in as an authority on this subject.maroon barchetta said:
Mistake?
No no no.
He came in as an authority on the subject.
Little bit different when you claim to be the lease holder of the property
Hornbeck said:
I'm still unclear as to who actually owns the land.
The fact that no taxes are paid on it certainly doesn't benefit the citizens of Brazos County.
This gives me an idea: I should start the First Church of the Spaghetti Monster and buy up several houses in Traditions, pay $0 taxes on, and lease out to my friends for $1 a month. Any takers? Trouble? You in?
It can go next to the church my uncle always wanted to start.
The Church of the Holy Frisbee
They believe that when you die, your soul goes on to the roof and can't be retrieved.
Being the lease holder he doesn't pay the taxes (or lack thereof.)Jsimonds58 said:
Little bit different when you claim to be the lease holder of the property
Could it be that on other property he owns or leases he knows what an ag exemption does to the tax owed and assumed it was the same for this property?
I agree. It does not mean we, as taxpayers, have all the facts at this point which would make us an authority on the subject.doubledog said:I think we are taxpayers, wanting some answers and getting half-truths and lies...Mr.Short-termMemory said:Everyone on this thread is coming in as an authority on this subject.maroon barchetta said:
Mistake?
No no no.
He came in as an authority on the subject.
Assuming Dorn is lying while accepting the pilot's perception as the truth is what I've seen so far. Could it be they are both just wrong without deliberately lying?
Can it be somewhere other than traditions?
Yes but he is claiming to know the reasons behind why the BBC gave him such a sweet heart deal. Little bit different situation here. Also interesting that every time someone tries to come in here and defend this behavior that a ton of inconsistencies are pointed out which y'all then rush to throw up a ton of excuses around, occums razor usually applies in that kind of situation.
doubledog said:I think we are taxpayers, wanting some answers and getting half-truths and lies...Mr.Short-termMemory said:Everyone on this thread is coming in as an authority on this subject.maroon barchetta said:
Mistake?
No no no.
He came in as an authority on the subject.
So he claims to know the reason why a (semi)governmental body did something, and it must be true? Maybe he's wrong about the reasons why the BBC gave him the deal.Jsimonds58 said:
Yes but he is claiming to know the reasons behind why the BBC gave him such a sweet heart deal. Little bit different situation here. Also interesting that every time someone tries to come in here and defend this behavior that a ton of inconsistencies are pointed out which y'all then rush to throw up a ton of excuses around, occums razor usually applies in that kind of situation.
Questioning government is good, and I'm not saying there isn't smoke, or even fire. I'm just saying there are other possibilities and speculations that could be made besides the possibilities and speculations being made here.
Idk about you but generally if someone offers me a deal that is that level of too good to be true I'm going to ask why. Unless I already knew it was because of a back room deal
Generally I agree completely. But again, we are assuming that was done in this case. Either the asking the reason or the backroom deal. Or both.Jsimonds58 said:
Idk about you but generally if someone offers me a deal that is that level of too good to be true I'm going to ask why. Unless I already knew it was because of a back room deal
But us assuming that was done doesn't mean either was actually done in this case.