11 ms·
In case anyone was wondering about the $7.75 million clamed damages, the claim is that allowing corner-crossing would cause the ranch to lose 25% of its value,
by kens 3y ago
In case anyone was wondering about the $7.75 million clamed damages,
the claim is that allowing corner-crossing would cause the ranch to lose 25% of its value, and the ranch is currently valued at $31.1 million. Details: https://www.gillettenewsrecord.com/news/wyoming/article_a5197326-df94-53ce-82bd-e640acd1929d.html https://www.gillettenewsrecord.com/news/wyoming/article_a519...
(I'm not justifying this claim, of course, just providing information in case anyone was wondering where the number came from.)
Edit: the number came from a real estate agent acting as an expert witness, who said he would drop the value by 25% or 30%; it's not a mathematical/geometrical
argument.
- thorncorona 3y agoThe owner, Fredric N Eshelman, and his lawyers by the way: > “Do they realize how much money my boss has … and property?” Grende said. https://wyofile.com/corner-crossing-video-do-they-realize-how-much-money-my-boss-has/ https://wyofile.com/corner-crossing-video-do-they-realize-ho...
- HarryHirsch 3y agoMeanwhile we are being told, even on this forum, that income inequality is no big thing and one shouldn't be envious, it's unseemly. Where is the revolution?
- dragonwriter 3y agoGiven that this forum skews toward the winning side of the income inequality game, its not really surprising to find that sentiment overrepresented here.
- HarryHirsch 3y agoAlways remember: if it can be used against them it will be used against you!
- kbelder 3y agoThe law, in its infinite wisdom, lets both rich men and poor men alike cut corners.
- omginternets 3y agoI mean, the little guy won this particular case, so I’m not sure what you’re on about …
- kortilla 3y agoThat’s why this article about money not winning is on the front page. The cognitive dissonance to attack boogeymen is mind boggling
- dragonwriter 3y ago> That’s why this article about money not winning is on the front page. No, its not. Its also not inconsistent with it being on the front page. Even if one assumes that the reason that it is on the front page is class sympathy with the party who prevailed on most of the issues, and not any other reason…”disproportionate” is not “exclusive”. I’ve never accused HN of being a unitary hive mind (in fact, if you go through my posting history, you’ll see that’s an idea that I frequently mock.) That doesn’t mean, though, that it is a representative – demographically or ideologically – slice of the population, either, and the ways it isn’t ideologically reflect, largely, the ways it isn’t demographically.
- detourdog 3y agoI thought it was on the front page to show how brilliant land management plan is ridiculous in implementation.
- kortilla 3y agoThat’s a lot of word diarrhea to say that it being on the front page is not representative of anything and that you have the secret actual guide to HN ideologies. Pray tell, what is your source for the boogeyman you are attacking since it’s not what is popular?
- detourdog 3y agoThere is no winning side you have been conned.
- wernercd 3y ago"Where is the revolution?" You know of any revolutions that solve inequality? All the ones in known history simply change who the winners and losers are and maintain inequality. Inequality absolutely exists and "revolutions" that claim to fix it in fact... don't. Socialism/Communism/etc all fail spectacularly to solve the "issue" of inequality.
- hgsgm 3y agoFrench Revolution?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- omginternets 3y agoHave you been paying attention to French politics lately? And incidentally, are you familiar with the atrocities committed during the revolution? The “vertical deportations” of the Vendée region might add some much-needed nuance to what I can only surmise to be your whitewashed, simplistic interpretation of the French Revolution. People excitedly waiting for revolution often have no idea what a revolution actually is. If they did, they’d be aware that the most fervent revolutionaries are among the first to be executed when the establishment is overthrown. They’d also have some awareness of how the old power structures are often replaced with equivalent ones. A revolution is a failure mode, not an end to be pursued. Read more history.
- pyrale 3y ago> Have you been paying attention to French politics lately? To be fair, the last revolution in France was 150 years ago, things change quite a bit in 150 years. > your whitewashed, simplistic interpretation of the French Revolution You seem to be equally biased, if on the other side. Events as large as a revolution are complex enough that it is hard to fit them into a manichean assessment.
- 3y ago
- PragmaticPulp 3y agoDid you miss the part where having all of that land and money didn’t let him get his way? > In the video, Bakken and Miller tell Grende, who had called to report the four hunters were trespassing by “corner crossing,” they would not cite the men for either trespassing to hunt or criminal trespass They also lost in court. It was a ranch manager trying to intimidate people with wealth, and it didn’t work.
- noitpmeder 3y agoNot only did they lose in court -- they further cemented this ruling as a matter of settled law.
- pyrale 3y agoSubsequently: > Officers said they would submit reports to the county attorney who, documents say, subsequently ordered a deputy to charge the men, which happened on Oct. 4.
- ethbr0 3y agoThat's Wyoming in a nutshell. "Do you know how much money I have?" "Yeah, but we still don't like you, and saying that makes us like you less." It's a really weird mix of respect for wealth/property (when you're a good neighbor) and disrespect for wealth/property (when you're an asshole). E.g. see what happens when a millionaire pisses off the fishing community by ignoring laws and harming river habitat
- noitpmeder 3y agoI mean it definitely was enough money to convince the county to prosecute after being prodded by the private land owner.
- pyrale 3y agoApparently he was right about money being important: > Officers said they would submit reports to the county attorney who, documents say, subsequently ordered a deputy to charge the men, which happened on Oct. 4.
- FpUser 3y ago>"allowing corner-crossing would cause the ranch to lose 25% of its value" Somebody should stop taking those shrooms.
- s1artibartfast 3y agoIt is a reasonable conclusion, but that doesn't mean it's the Hunter's fault.
- lolinder 3y agoThe horrific reason for this figure is that owning a square in this ridiculous checkerboard is equivalent to owning 1/4 stake in the squares of public land that it's adjacent to. If you own four black squares on the checkerboard on all sides of a single white square, you also own the white square, because you are the only person who can legally pass through onto the public land. By citing this figure, the plaintiffs are essentially admitting that they are claiming de facto ownership over the public's land.
- hadlock 3y agoBy this logic of five squares, wouldn't that reduce the value by 20%
- lolinder 3y agoThis ranch apparently consists of quite a few squares in a complicated pattern, but even if it were just the four it wouldn't end up being exactly 20% because you would have to factor in the partial ownership of every adjacent public square, not just the one you surround completely.
- londons_explore 3y agoLooking at the map in the article, it looks like it is pretty much a checkerboard. Ie. Half is owned, half is not. So you'd expect a 50% reduction (minus a couple of percent for edge squares which are not yet enclosed)
- lolinder 3y agoWhich article has a map of this ranch? I've been looking but haven't found one. EDIT: I finally found maps in the opinion: https://www.wyd.uscourts.gov/sites/wyd/files/opinions/22-cv-67_SWS_Order.pdf https://www.wyd.uscourts.gov/sites/wyd/files/opinions/22-cv-...
- 3y ago
- dools 3y ago> Attorneys for Elk Mountain Ranch owner Fred Eshelman last week designated real estate agent James Rinehart of Laramie as an expert witness in Eshelman’s civil suit against the hunters Nothing more credible than a local real estate agent being paid to serve as an expert witness by the prosecution team of a guy that owns a 22,045-acre ranch! He probably had a sniper dot on his forehead during the testimony.
- karaterobot 3y agoI was wondering exactly that, thank you for elucidating. Reading into it more than I should, it seems to me like what the plaintiff actually believed is that if people thought they could corner cross, it would reduce the value of the property, because it would mean that more people would be emboldened to do it. One group of ladder-bearing hunterrs wouldn't do it themselves, and without the right to cross his property being set in precedent, many groups probably avoided doing it for fear of being sued. The legal gray area dissuaded them. No more! This is one of those times when opening the box killed the cat.
- ahi 3y agoIt's worse than that. The ranch owner was essentially trying to lay claim to BLM property. If he is the only one with access, he has effectively stolen it from everyone else
- bckygldstn 3y agoWith that logic it doesn't seem like the hunters are liable for the damages? The hunters aren't the ones deciding if corner-crossing is allowed. Even the court seems faultless here. It's not re-zoning their land, it's clarifying a law that already existed. The owner had an incorrect pre-ruling valuation. This case is especially crazy cause the landowners sued the hunters: if they hadn't sued there wouldn't have been any damages, maybe they should sue themselves!
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- lazide 3y agoNear as I can tell, they’re trying to get the court to agree to a specific corrupt interpretation that essentially denies the federal laws power. Which is why it has gotten this far.
- KennyBlanken 3y agoIt's gotten this far because it would render a large amount of public land unreachable, and outdoor-related organizations not surprisingly care quite strongly about that.
- lazide 3y agoI think you may have inverted the meaning of what I was saying.
- hgsgm 3y agoYou mean the landowners are liable for damages.
- MereInterest 3y agoThat seems incredibly weird as an argument. Either corner crossing is illegal, in which case the loss would be the actual value, or corner crossing is legal, in which case no damage was done and the private land was just overvalued. I’m not a lawyer, but I cannot fathom any situation in which the individual actions would be liable for having “caused” the decrease in value.
- nraynaud 3y agomake any random argument in court and see what sticks.
- az226 3y agoThere is a contested aspect if one of the defendants did trespass and listed the max judgment as $100. The $8M loss of value is such a joke.
- quickthrower2 3y agoWhat if it were determined that people crossing would increase it's value? The argument based on cities with higher density generally commanding higher price per sq. ft. If 10 million people cross it a year, then they would have billions of dollars worth of land.
- mikeryan 3y agoIronically by bringing the case and losing it he has lost that (entirely theoretical) $7.75M value as corner crossing, particularly his specific corners is now codified in law.
- az226 3y agoWould be even funnier if the state brings eminent domain to seize a few square feet of land in each corner and build a little bridge that welcomes you across each corner. And pays market value for a few square feet of ranch land.
- mannykannot 3y agoThere is an element of self-referentiality here: the basis for the plaintiff's valuation only makes sense if, only if and after the plaintiff prevails.
- cbsmith 3y agoI was very much wondering where that valuation came from, and this was the only rational explanation I could come up with. What causes me to scratch my head here is that the trespasser isn't the one causing that drop in valuation. It's the market perception that such trespassing is possible. For example, if there was never a trespass on this property, but someone, somewhere else brought a similar case before the court and got the same ruling from a judge, I would expect the impact on the valuation of the property would be impacted in the same way. It also seems a bit troublesome that the perceived valuation is driven by the owner's efforts to misrepresent the property. I could argue they should be charged with theft of $7.75 million, and are effectively suing people for reclaiming the stolen goods.