Here's the part I wanted to point out: ......."11 County Violations
The Hauters and the Virginia Outdoors Foundation have always had a rocky relationship as co-owners, primarily because of the land's complicated ownership history. Information is so sketchy that county officials at the moment turn to Leigh Hauter's Web site, www.bullrunfarm.com, for information.
An excerpt: "200 years ago this valley was owned by a very, very large landowner. I think his name was Smith." Court records show Eli Hall owned the land and died in 1906, leaving it to his children in 10 parcels, Gallehr said. Wenonah Hauter's father, William Bates, bought eight; the Virginia Outdoors Foundation came into possession of the other two.
But none of the ownership was spelled out legally, so no one is sure who owns the cliffs. The foundation owns 118 acres next to the Hauters and has long desired to add the cliffs to its 187,000 protected acres in Virginia.
Tensions mounted in 1994 when the foundation sued the Hautersover woodcutting on the protected land. And in 1996, the Fauquier County health and building departments found 11 state and county violations on the jointly owned land, including sewer gas odors seeping into a tenant's laundry room, frayed and broken electrical wires and open pipes that let tadpoles through water faucets. Foundation Director Leslie Grayson accompanied a county health official onto the property and found human waste on the ground and goats whose skin had folded over their outgrown collars.
'If they don't take care of their land, how can we trust them to take care of these precious cliffs?' Grayson said.
Leigh Hauter said he was living in Silver Spring at the time and was not around on a daily basis to check on the property.
'The foundation was just as responsible as we were. They own 20 percent. The tenant never told us about the problems, so when we tried getting them to leave, they told the county on us,' Hauter said. 'We took care of the problems afterward.'"......
"The Virginia Outdoors Foundation sells open land to people who agree never to develop it. The Hauters think Currier's deal was an attempt to grab the county's "jewel" at a below-market price. The deal prompted an investigation by then-Gov. L. Douglas Wilder (D) into all the foundation's land agreements with the county's wealthy residents. No wrongdoing was found, but the foundation voted to advertise its future real estate sales."......
THE VIRGINIA OUTDOORS FOUNDATION IS AN OFFICIAL DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE OF VIRGINIA. When people give a property easement to the Virginia Outdoors Foundation, they are in reality giving an easement to the State.
Can thank the Democrat Party, which has a policy of collectivizing farms; and is now affecting that under the guise of land purchases and acquisitions made in the names of "resource planning" and "bio-diversity."
It's a wonder that anybody in rural America has voted for the Democrat Party over the last 25 years.
The Democrat Party is against private, family farm ownership.
The Democrat Party has been focusing on the fact that rural American town dwellers who have not had tracts of land in use, are very much desiring employment in work other than at the local MacDonald's restaurant. This attention follows closely upon the heels of various industries, which have capitalized on such labor pools and have built factories "in the heartland." (When driving cross country on the back roads, so to speak, now and then you can come across some small town which has a rather substantial division of a major corporation "in its back yard.)
Well, the Democrat Party is taking advantage of that success and consequent growth of non-farmers "in the heartland," to propose employment as farming "technicians" who would work the farmland which the government(s) has sub-contracted for that purpose, after the government has acquired the land, again, acquired under the names of "resource planning" and "bio-diversity."
This plan of the Democrat Party in partnership with quite a chunk of "corporate America," is one reason for the C.A.R.A. legislation (and other such legislation) to build a general land-fund by which private farmland can be bought up.
The deal is that the "corporate" investors "get dibs on" farming --- that is, they will for the most part win the bids and farm the land.
Yes, the government and environmentalists make noise about how the land will be acquired for "preservation," but the plan allows for development, contrary to what is marketed to the public eye.
That development is both the farming of the land --- this time in corporate - and - government control, in addition to "research."
That word "research" gets thrown around in meetings and in "their" literature, faster than anything else; nobody really stopping to explain by what they mean by "research;" instead, just the liberal - nodding - of - heads about how great is "research," and we're doing it all for the good of the people through "research;" call it "research stew."
Cause that's the simplest description from here.
Well, one of the best kept secrets from most of "the heartland," is this union of corporate giving to the Democrat Party, corporate giving to universities, government "giving" to universities, universities "managing" the land and doing "research" "UNDER" some department(s) of the federal and state governments, and such land - and - social - engineering thence giving to the investors (and contributors), land upon which to farm and otherwise develop.
That is roughly "what is going on," in the planning and implementation stages extant.
If only the rural American farm families of Iowa, the Dakotas, Wisconsin, etc. would care to wake up and notice ... and then stop wasting their votes on the Democrat Party.
---and in a following reply 5, I added this:
Adding to reply 4, above ---
The investors, that is, the winning bidders for utilization of the land ... they get to use the land and make a profit at it WITHOUT PAYING TAXES ON THE LAND.
Frankly, Wall Street is thrilled at the prospect.
Investment bankers are thrilled.
They have been searching around for enterprise in which to invest, and they have found, in planning, the land upon which to develop BUT NOT PAY TAXES.
Farmers in South Dakota vote for Tom Daschle. They pay taxes on their land.
He plans to acquire their kindred (other peoples' like) land (because he does not want to lose HIS constituency), unbeknownst to them, and sub-contract the use of the land, to investors.
The environmentalist mindset thinks it has won a victory by turning over the land to THEIR purposes of, for example, restoring the sniper nat to its rightful kingdom, and because of THAT, they are happy enough to not trouble themselves too much with the land which is sub-contracted for development.
But the message here, is that nobody is paying any taxes on that land anymore, because the government / state owns it. Furthermore, the contract winners are NOT paying any taxes on the land, because they do not own it.
Now, they're going to give a percentage of their profits to the gov't / university management in situs, but the investors will be happy --- OR THERE'S NO DEAL.
Well, not a problem for the Democrats, because to their way of thinking, they are getting enough of what they want as well as being further along to recognized collectivization of private property; "fools that the corporate investors are, we'll use them and their greed to help pay and pave the way!"
Astute.
It's working.
The corporate investors are too short-sighted to concern themselves with THEIR SHRINKING INVESTOR POPULATION "facing inevitable death." Nope, for now, "let's just focus upon what money can be made in the short term, not to mention how our syndicalism with the socialists helps induce their serving notice to the unions to 'back off!'"
I left that part out; where the unions' membership who have also marched in lockstep with the Democrat Party, are also getting screwed.
...more --- my reply 8 ---
One more thing, to replies 4 and 5, above ---
Those constituents of Sen. Tom Daschle?
They still have THEIR land, and they still pay taxes on it, but they pay more and more --- with the help of subsidies from him --- the cash flow permitting their continuance, but their land is really worthless to them other than maintaining, for a Daschle Moment, their livelihood. Yet they must pay taxes ... to make up for the loss of the tax base elsewhere.
For the most part, nobody other than the federal government could afford to purchase the land which is under such a tremendous tax burden; again, IF the farmers would care to notice THAT!
No heirs will inherit the land SUCCESSFULLY except through creative legislation resulting from public sympathy for the farmers. And there will probably always be some of such legislation because it is good for political candidates. Yet we will have token farm families; culturally quaint, kind of like Williamsburg, VA., and they will be closely watched.
Because the liberals are paranoid about the roots of resistance to government control in this country, which roots go way back to individual self-reliance upon one's own land.
The leftists are attacking ALL the foundations of our Liberty, but tragically, the people who really work for a living, are too busy to notice all of these encroachments.