Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 214
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    69

    Hancock Forest Management - New non-motorized permit requirements!

    Real bad news - just learned that Hancock is instituting a new permit for all non-motorized recreational use of their properties in Washington.

    Effective January 1, 2012 a permit will be required to be on their land, including the Snoqualmie property which includes the Tokul trails. Annual permit is $75/person or $150/ family. A little more info is available hereHancock Forest Management

    I know that all user groups and local land managers are getting this info simultaneously and I'll let eveyone know as I learn more.

    Glenn
    Evergreen Mountain Bike Alliance

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    5,682
    Of course I've got lots to say. But, best kept out of print for now...

    The first thing that comes to mind is enforcement though...

    I will say that T-West had probably "dare I say" the best trail conditions of the year out there this afternoon.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pope's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Borneo View Post
    Of course I've got lots to say. But, best kept out of print for now...

    The first thing that comes to mind is enforcement though...

    I will say that T-West had probably "dare I say" the best trail conditions of the year out there this afternoon.
    Enforcement will be a function of where you leave your vehicle. Right?
    Wisdom is the domain of the Wiz...which is extinct. FZ

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    5,682
    Nope Pope.

    You have to have your pass on you at all times. It's a personal pass, not a parking or vehicle one.

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    249

    Is there a pending change in the queue ...

    Glenn,

    Are there any pending changes or amendments in the queue (State Legislature's) regarding modifications to Washington State's Recreational Use Statute?

    According to the current language that if Hancock (or any land owner) charges any fees (except for the cutting and removal of firewood which is capped at $25) for recreational use the land owner waives liability protections granted under the statute.

    JD
    The quiver: 2010 Santa Cruz Nomad, 2011 Specialized Demo II, 2011 Canfield Brothers Yelli Screamy.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Jimba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    631
    I was wondering the same thing.

    The real downer to this is, each $75 they get is purely profit. it's not like DNR or Wash State parks where they have to pay for park employees and supplies.

    I see it as total corporate greed.

    Unfortunately, I think in enough years to come, we will have to pay to ride just about anywhere. I guess if your weigh in taxes that may just about be the case now?

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,730
    Welp, looks like we have a new front runner for the Hall of Lame in the ongoing saga that is Tokul.
    .~...|\
    ...~.|.\
    ..~..|..\
    .~...|...\
    ~....|....\
    ...~.|.....\
    ....~|____\
    _____||_________
    .\....FAILBOAT..../

  8. #8
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    210
    Quote Originally Posted by Hancock link below
    From: About Snoqualmie | Hancock

    All access is generally open from January 1st to December 31st except July 3rd, 4th and 5th. Access is allowed from 1 and 1/2 hours before sunrise to 1 and 1/2 hours after sunset and overnight for up to 14 days in a month with a camping permit.
    That pretty much wipes out night riding in the winter. At it's worst, in mid-December, the sun sets at 4:16 PM, so you gotta finish your "night" ride by 5:46 PM. Even at it's best, who ride at night for just an hour and a half?

  9. #9
    Squeaky Wheel
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    2,287
    Interesting to read the full rules here:

    http://www.hancockrecreationnw.com/s...Snoqualmie.pdf

    It may be corporate greed, Jimba, but like it or not, it's their land and they get to make the rules. In the big scheme of things, this will generate bupkus revenue for them, so they probably put the fee in place to fund an enforcement person, or weed out those who are not serious about using the place. If you want to buy the land from them and open it back up without a fee I will give you all the moral support you need

    I'll buy a permit because I enjoy riding there many times/year, and also the permit is not setup like the per-vehicle shakedown that the state has going on.

    The rules say no trailbuilding OR maintenance without permission from Hancock. This could be an opportunity to legimitize the trails in there.

    I too wonder about the liability shield, especially since the rules and regs do not have anything about holding Hancock harmless in case of injury.

  10. #10
    Just roll it......
    Reputation: ebxtreme's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,552
    Like others have said, the Rec Immunity Law is the biggest issue I see here.

    I can't imagine any meaningful enforcement though.

  11. #11
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    537
    For those just learning about the WA Rec Immunity Law...
    Like myself...
    Rec Use Immunity explanation.
    Seattle Washington Personal Injury Lawyer Legal Articles | Amicus Personae | Supreme Court Update: Recreational Use Immunity | King County, Tacoma, Sea Tac, Olympia

    "RCW 4.24.210 says:
    Any public or private landowners ... who allow members of the public to use them for the purposes of outdoor recreation ... without charging a fee ... shall not be liable for unintentional injuries to such users."

    Cheers,
    Mike

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    249

    Timberland designation at risk?

    I am wondering if a land management company puts its Timberland taxation designation at risk for their timberlands if they start generating alternative revenues from that land outside of timber harvest activities?

    I am sure the B&O tax liability on these use fees is negligible but if they themselves are generating revenue based the use of their property can't the appropriate county taxing authority come after them for property taxes because they are now operating a business outside of timber harvesting?

    100,000 acres
    x $2000 per acre of assessed value (I guessed at this value)
    x 1.00%
    = $2,000,000 per year in property taxes

    The state timberland designation shields land owners because they only pay taxes on the value of the timber and only when it is harvested (and they are required to harvest at a minimum rate). In addition I think they pay a fire protection tax but I think that is about it.
    The quiver: 2010 Santa Cruz Nomad, 2011 Specialized Demo II, 2011 Canfield Brothers Yelli Screamy.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    5,682
    Quote Originally Posted by ebxtreme View Post
    Like others have said, the Rec Immunity Law is the biggest issue I see here.

    I can't imagine any meaningful enforcement though.
    I can imagine what would happen if this was tried at Galbraith though.

  14. #14
    I should be out riding
    Reputation: ACree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,505
    Quote Originally Posted by Jimba View Post
    I was wondering the same thing.

    The real downer to this is, each $75 they get is purely profit. it's not like DNR or Wash State parks where they have to pay for park employees and supplies.

    I see it as total corporate greed.

    Unfortunately, I think in enough years to come, we will have to pay to ride just about anywhere. I guess if your weigh in taxes that may just about be the case now?
    More like employee greed. Hancock is a management company, the funds being managed are institutional investors... things like pensions, endowment funds, foundations, and probably individuals too. If you work somewhere with a defined benefit plan, ask them where the funds are invested - maybe Hancock is managing your $. And, they'll have to spend to enforce this or it'll never work. So definitely not all profit. Maybe even more of an attempt to recoup the costs currently incurred in letting the public have free access, yet having to deal with things like ripping out stunts that magically appear out there.

    Not that I want to pay, but why should private land be open to the public for free? On the other hand, maybe we should be contacting our legislators and asking that public access be required for large timberland holders to qualify for timber property tax programs.

    Very interesting that they seem to be waiving recreation immunity. The biggest problems I see are that very few people will ever hear about this program, they'll never be able to sign every entry point, let alone get people to only enter through the points where one can sign in, and it really sucks for people who might only ride there very infrequently, like out of town guests, etc. The single biggest issue is the very clear prohibition on trail building. Good thing so many game trails are rideable.

  15. #15
    I should be out riding
    Reputation: ACree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,505
    If I were them, I'd argue that it's an ancillary activity, and that the key issue is that it's still a tree farm. Further, I'd argue that it's really an attempt to mitigate costs incurred by allowing the public to recreate for free

    Back when CLC was trying to purchase the property in 2003 or so, I think the price was about $108 million, so $1K per acre or so. Timber values are correlated with with housing, so should be less now. The KC parcel viewer shows one lot near Lake Marie King County Department of Assessments: eReal Property as having an assessed value of $65K for 314 acres, or $207/acre, and a property tax bill of $800, or $2.50/acre.

    Quote Originally Posted by jdusto View Post
    I am wondering if a land management company puts its Timberland taxation designation at risk for their timberlands if they start generating alternative revenues from that land outside of timber harvest activities?

    I am sure the B&O tax liability on these use fees is negligible but if they themselves are generating revenue based the use of their property can't the appropriate county taxing authority come after them for property taxes because they are now operating a business outside of timber harvesting?

    100,000 acres
    x $2000 per acre of assessed value (I guessed at this value)
    x 1.00%
    = $2,000,000 per year in property taxes

    The state timberland designation shields land owners because they only pay taxes on the value of the timber and only when it is harvested (and they are required to harvest at a minimum rate). In addition I think they pay a fire protection tax but I think that is about it.

  16. #16
    I should be out riding
    Reputation: ACree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,505
    I see beer is now banned on Hancock lands too.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    5,682
    Evergreen should call an "All Hands Meeting" and scrape up the 65K to buy that 314 acres. That's dirt cheap when you look at the cost of Duthie at roughly half that size.

    No beer?

    Woodway, I take "trail enhancement" as written to mean no features built on trails. But, it doesn't mean no maintenaince. At least she's acknowledging the trails exist because that was a sticking point in the last MS Ride negotiation that fell flat in 2006.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,730
    Quote Originally Posted by Borneo View Post
    Evergreen should call an "All Hands Meeting" and scrape up the 65K to buy that 314 acres. That's dirt cheap when you look at the cost of Duthie at roughly half that size.
    65K is how much it cost to put in Cuss Hollow.
    .~...|\
    ...~.|.\
    ..~..|..\
    .~...|...\
    ~....|....\
    ...~.|.....\
    ....~|____\
    _____||_________
    .\....FAILBOAT..../

  19. #19
    I should be out riding
    Reputation: ACree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,505
    Quote Originally Posted by Borneo View Post
    Evergreen should call an "All Hands Meeting" and scrape up the 65K to buy that 314 acres. That's dirt cheap when you look at the cost of Duthie at roughly half that size.

    No beer?

    Woodway, I take "trail enhancement" as written to mean no features built on trails. But, it doesn't mean no maintenaince. At least she's acknowledging the trails exist because that was a sticking point in the last MS Ride negotiation that fell flat in 2006.
    Note, that's assessed value per King County, not a sale listing.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    5,682
    I know. I already had an Evergreen member e-mail me asking if they could buy it for the club though.

    And, careful Skooks, Cuss is/was about one millionth of the cost of that pseudo trail thingy you are working on.

  21. #21
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,286
    $75 each to pay for enforcement is BS.

    We need a Group Rate for Evergreen Members!

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,730
    Quote Originally Posted by Borneo View Post
    Cuss is/was about one millionth of the cost of that pseudo trail thingy you are working on.
    As of today, taking away the cost of the material on the starting gate, Deuces has cost the grant less than a thousand dollars. There are key factors in why that is but donation time/resources/equipment, volunteering, and the trail being completely dirt has to do with it. So with the pavers you used on Cuss, Deuces from the starting gate down, cost about the same.

    Back to Tokul, i've respected closures for Victor Falls, Griffin Creek and others. i'll respect Tokul as well because i really can't afford that kind of expense. But even if i could, there is absolutely no value in offering that kind of money for what exists in there.

    i have fond memories of riding in there with my friend as we replenished the bra trail with all of her garments a decade ago when hardly anyone even knew about it. As well as my first BBTC work party at Half Bench.

    i love what they did with the new stuff and i'll miss a few of the trails. But at the same time it's private property, and if someone asks or infers you to leave.(by asking a steep price with no value) Then unless something get's worked out it's time to go.

    i hope we as a community use what's happening here and are motivated to help where things are better. We've got private land managers with the church, and Pastor Steve has been really cool. One of his wishes for his land is to provide the community with a positive outlet in recreation. It's a really good situation, and one with alot of stability as land manager and user want the same thing.

    i think FM's idea is a good one, i hope it works out, it would be beneficial. Would finally prompt Evergreen to issue membership cards, which could be used for other cool things too. But i can't help but be cynical because i doubt Hancocks wish is to give back to the community in the same way Pastor Steve is. And really in no way should it be required for them, they are trying to turn a buck on timber, that's it. i mean it really sucks, and i don't like it, but it is what it is. If the land managers and the user-groups aren't aligned there isn't any recourse to it really, like when it's public land.
    Last edited by Skookum; 11-04-2011 at 04:52 PM.
    .~...|\
    ...~.|.\
    ..~..|..\
    .~...|...\
    ~....|....\
    ...~.|.....\
    ....~|____\
    _____||_________
    .\....FAILBOAT..../

  23. #23
    JRA
    JRA is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: JRA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    605
    Sounds like a good opportunity for somene from EMBA to write a short piece for Dirt Rag's "Access Action" segment. Could highlight the good things happening w/ the Church land and the unfortunate things happening w/ the Hancock lands.

    The recent access struggles around Galbraith got some decent press a few issues ago I thought. An opportunity exists for something similar for access around the Seattle area.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    963
    I'm guessing trail maintenance will slow quite a bit with these fees, right? is riding there going to be worth it after a few wind storms blow through this winter?

    I will get another ride out there and will make it my last. A real bummer as I was just becoming more interested in riding there.

    I can't believe the camping and motorized costs. You need the camping/motorized permit PLUS the individual permit.

    I'm pretty dissapointed as Tokul East is probably a 10 minute drive. Also, I was loking at the directions for the entry gate. Its super far from the trails I know (flowtron 3k, Last frontier, Crazy Ivan, mud creek).

    Is there people we can email about this direction they are going? There's a form on the contact us page, but I want to email someone directly to express disappointment and ask for reconsideration

    -joel

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Jimba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    631
    Click on the link ggluv posted in his original post at the top, then hit the contact us and send a message to them, that's what I did.

  26. #26
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Agate's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    307
    Just in case anyone is curious.


  27. #27
    I5Troll
    Reputation: mwestra2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,305

  28. #28
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Navigator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    383
    Quote Originally Posted by ACree View Post
    The KC parcel viewer shows one lot near Lake Marie King County Department of Assessments: eReal Property as having an assessed value of $65K for 314 acres, or $207/acre, and a property tax bill of $800, or $2.50/acre.
    Not sure if you knew which lot you picked out but that 314 acres in the link is the core of Tokul East including the switchback road, Flowtron, Last Frontier, Safety First and all the connectors. That's one sweet piece of dirt.

    BTW, I've been riding FT regularly since the ladder bridge days years ago and it's still so sweet. The new first section gets better the faster I go and the main whoops always deliver. Well done to the trail gnomes. Should be an IMBA epic.

    Also, it's amazing how much Hancock owns up there...millions of acres of Tokul like goodness. It would be worth $75 to get an agreement for legal trails throughout the property. You could build for 50 years.

  29. #29
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Posts
    5,682
    Been thinking that logging Last Frontier and FT3K may also be a ploy to get folks to not bother coming out there anymore. Take away the most popular trail and....

    Though it should be really easy to clear it off after the logging. (For those that still want to ride it after.)

  30. #30
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    553
    I only learned of this Saturday night, but my initial thoughts after reading the thread and FM's are:

    1) I'm not paying the $75, Evergreen will get that money instead.
    2) I'd happily contribute $1k to the cause if we can get 65 folks to step up, purchase the parcel, and create some sort of stewardship trust to keep it open to mountain bikers in perpetuity.

    The rock climbers recently did something very similar in Index. A giant chunk of granite was going to be sold to a mining company and quarried and the rock climbing community raised money, fought the long hard fight, and ultimately bought the parcel. They wanted to hand it over to State Parks, but I believe SP had to turn it down, but the land is a protected "park" going forward (city or county, I forget).

    If enough people are serious about doing that sort of thing, it can be done. Any lawyers/realtors want to contribute some pro-bono due-dilligence?

  31. #31
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    553
    By the way, the Idiot Police should have a license to shoot-on-sight anyone who actually purchases a camping permit.

    Camping permits are also available that allow overnight camping in designated areas. Up to 200 permits are available at a price of $300 each. Campers must also have either a motorized access or non-motorized access permit. Please click on the camping tab for more information.

  32. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Jimba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    631
    Count me in for 1K

  33. #33
    I didn't do it
    Reputation: Mookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    9,122
    I like this idea but one thing, would Hancock actually sell this or any other parcel to a non timber or non government entity? Any previous examples of Hancock doing this?

    BTW I'm good for 200 or $300.

  34. #34
    I5Troll
    Reputation: mwestra2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,305
    Love the input. We've gotta figure out some way to buy some land for a bike park in there.
    • How valuable is the land to Hancock after they log it?
    • If the assessed value is $65K now, what does that really mean in terms of appraised value after it's logged?


    Instead of getting lump sum pledges, in Canada the community gets together and pledges a monthly amount. They take that to a bank and get a loan. 1000 members pledging $10/mo = $10K mortgage payment. Way more than we'd need, right? Our own real community mtb forest (after the trees grow back up). Or if we don't have enough, engage hikers, equestrians, runners, other users.

  35. #35
    I should be out riding
    Reputation: ACree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,505
    Nice ideas, but I think what is needed is an easement for public access, not ownership of the land. CLC had a great plan in the early 2000's to buy this property, issue tax exempt bonds to pay for it, and log as needed to pay the bonds off. The catch was that federal legislation was needed before the bonds could be issued, and it didn't happen in time. Instead, Hancock bought the land, and sold a conservation easement to King County to prevent future development ($22 million for this... and yet it didn't cover public access). The answer isn't attempting to purchase 300 acres that already has too high of trail density, it's getting a public access easement to go along with the conservation easement. Especially when the conservation easement covers 90K acres, enough to ride all day and never see anyone. Trail from Snoq to Index anyone?

    There's an area near Bend that's also being currently pursued by a nonprofit with a similar plan, hopefully that'll go through.

  36. #36
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    3,730
    Quote Originally Posted by ACree View Post
    Nice ideas, but I think what is needed is an easement for public access, not ownership of the land. CLC had a great plan in the early 2000's to buy this property, issue tax exempt bonds to pay for it, and log as needed to pay the bonds off. The catch was that federal legislation was needed before the bonds could be issued, and it didn't happen in time. Instead, Hancock bought the land, and sold a conservation easement to King County to prevent future development ($22 million for this... and yet it didn't cover public access). The answer isn't attempting to purchase 300 acres that already has too high of trail density, it's getting a public access easement to go along with the conservation easement. Especially when the conservation easement covers 90K acres, enough to ride all day and never see anyone. Trail from Snoq to Index anyone?

    There's an area near Bend that's also being currently pursued by a nonprofit with a similar plan, hopefully that'll go through.
    That actually sounds like something to divert energy toward. i mean Tokul is neat, but 300 acres versus 90,000 acres, i've never been that good at math but...
    .~...|\
    ...~.|.\
    ..~..|..\
    .~...|...\
    ~....|....\
    ...~.|.....\
    ....~|____\
    _____||_________
    .\....FAILBOAT..../

  37. #37
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,286
    Quote Originally Posted by mwestra2 View Post
    Love the input.
    Very cool.

    With so many unkowns, I feel strongly we need Evergreen to engage Hancock and get some clarity on what the future of mountain bike trails on there properties looks like, and what our options are for an easement/purchase.
    • $75 for access to trails that have been destroyed by logging, with no ability to rebuild, maintain or develop? BS.
    • $75 for access to ride, rebuild, maintain and develop coordinated improvements... maybe.
    • $75 to Evergreen to put towards negotiation with Hancock, purchase, legal counsel for easement, potential skills park development, etc.... already paid!



    Quote Originally Posted by Borneo
    Though it should be really easy to clear it off after the logging. (For those that still want to ride it after.)
    I surveyed the destruction at Tokul East yesterday- as Mike mentioned, dirt highways have been put in, it's obvious Hancock is preparing for a major logging operation. I'm not making any assumptions about what things will look like there in 6 months....if there's even access build/ride/maintain there.

  38. #38
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    210

    EMBA 2011 Listening Tour

    Quote Originally Posted by FM View Post
    Very cool.

    With so many unkowns, I feel strongly we need Evergreen to engage Hancock and get some clarity on what the future of mountain bike trails on there properties looks like, and what our options are for an easement/purchase.
    Agreed, and though I am not in the inner circle, I'm willing to bet Evergreen is fully engaged on this and other critical advocacy issues. I'm actually kinda glad there's been no response other than the initial notification from Evergreen, because these kinds of negotiations have to happen in private.

    To spin this thought entirely around, I think the engagement lacking is between Evergreen and it's members, er, supporters. We really can't have these discussions in public, or if we do, we can't expect anything from Evergreen until there is an official position or response - anything less and we would appear to be waffling on our thoughts. Years ago we had a listening tour where Evergreen representatives went to quite a few neighborhoods to listen to the users. I had a candid discussion with 5 other people at a bar in North Bend as part of the reachout to our community, and I definitely felt that Evergreen was listening.

    There's been a lot of great ideas floating around on this topic, I think best way at this time is to repeat the listening tour. Not just for this issue, but for other hot topics like Issaquah initiative, wilderness, etc. I've been really impressed with the professionalism of Evergreen for the recent advocacy issue on wilderness, which is why I renewed my support. The slippery slope we're treading on is giving support for a specific topic while they address multiple topics, but I'm ok with that because it's clear they are representing us very well. After all, if not for Glenn's initial post, none of us would have been aware that we are on the verge of losing access until it were to become too late.

  39. #39
    FM
    FM is offline
    mtbr member
    Reputation: FM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    9,286

    Listening Tour

    Listening Tour sounds great to me.

  40. #40
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Kliemann53's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    245
    Quote Originally Posted by nwbikur View Post
    I like this idea but one thing, would Hancock actually sell this or any other parcel to a non timber or non government entity? Any previous examples of Hancock doing this?

    BTW I'm good for 200 or $300.
    Hancock sold Griffen creek. Its know a private hunting area with a gun range.

  41. #41
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Bruiser's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    189
    Quote Originally Posted by Kliemann53 View Post
    Hancock sold Griffen creek. Its know a private hunting area with a gun range.
    I can't remember exactly how much that transaction was, but I'm pretty sure sale price was something north of $2 million even though assessed value was maybe $150k or so at most?

    We would probably need a few more peeps than 65 to raise that much.

  42. #42
    Squeaky Wheel
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    2,287
    According to the KingCo assesor data, it looks like the Griffin property was sold for $2.2M.

  43. #43
    I didn't do it
    Reputation: Mookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    9,122
    That's what I was afraid of. It seemed like $65k as an asking price was too good to be true. Maybe the access easement route makes more sense. But it sounds like that's going to take some serious coin to work out as well. Hmmm, what to do.

  44. #44
    I5Troll
    Reputation: mwestra2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,305
    An easement for public access would be awesome, but why would they consider it?

    $$...? The amount involved would be such a tiny drop in the bucket? Manulife Financial posted a third quarter loss of $1.3 billion, a market cap of $21 billion and invested assets near 1/4 trillion C$.

    Corporate citizenship...? IMHO Hancock's real agenda is clear: they want users out. The $75 fee / recreation program must represent a net cost for them and is just a first step in getting recreational use to go away.

  45. #45
    I didn't do it
    Reputation: Mookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    9,122
    Quote Originally Posted by mwestra2 View Post
    An easement for public access would be awesome, but why would they consider it?

    $$...? The amount involved would be such a tiny drop in the bucket? Manulife Financial posted a third quarter loss of $1.3 billion, a market cap of $21 billion and invested assets near 1/4 trillion C$.

    Corporate citizenship...? IMHO Hancock's real agenda is clear: they want users out. The $75 fee / recreation program must represent a net cost for them and is just a first step in getting recreational use to go away.
    Unfortunately I think this is right on target. I believe the real motivation behind the $75.00 fee is to discourage people from using their land. Of course its their right, I get that. I'm sure its just part of their overall long term strategy to close the forest to recreation.

    Until now I thought it was a pretty cool arrangement that recreational users had with Hancock, i.e. they'll let us use the property as long as the users don't build too many features, etc. Unless some sort of a deal is worked out between Hancock and King county or EMBA or something like that I'm not so sure how long access will happen.

    I'm a very regular user of Tokul East and West-both as a cyclist and a hiker. I'm going to hold off on forking over my hard earned $75.00 for now. I think I'm going to wait to see just how vigorous the enforcement is. If access will be a problem, well, then I just may stop going there which makes me very, very sad. EMBA gets an extra $75.00 though.

  46. #46
    I should be out riding
    Reputation: ACree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,505
    Quote Originally Posted by nwbikur View Post
    That's what I was afraid of. It seemed like $65k as an asking price was too good to be true. Maybe the access easement route makes more sense. But it sounds like that's going to take some serious coin to work out as well. Hmmm, what to do.
    That's why $65K was never described as an asking price, it's appraised value per King County, and may well have no relation to the real world.

    I'll be the contrary one I suppose. I wouldn't contribute to any effort to buy a 300 acre scrap, when there's over 100K acres there, with 90K covered by conservation easements. The goal should be an agreement that allows recreation and trail management. Think bigger...

    The long term answer is for mtn bikers to be more involved with groups like CLC and be able to be involved with these deals as they occur, and make sure public access is addressed when conservation easements are negotiated.

  47. #47
    I5Troll
    Reputation: mwestra2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,305
    Quote Originally Posted by ACree View Post
    The goal should be an agreement that allows recreation and trail management
    Great goal - agreed. But what's in it for Hancock? Not trying to be skeptical... just want to know.

  48. #48
    I didn't do it
    Reputation: Mookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    9,122
    [QUOTE]
    Quote Originally Posted by ACree View Post
    That's why $65K was never described as an asking price, it's appraised value per King County, and may well have no relation to the real world.
    Right, that makes sense. $65K was thrown around as the amount needed and so I think its important to know that we're talking millions, not thousands.

    I'll be the contrary one I suppose. I wouldn't contribute to any effort to buy a 300 acre scrap, when there's over 100K acres there, with 90K covered by conservation easements. The goal should be an agreement that allows recreation and trail management. Think bigger...
    To think small for a moment, if an opportunity arose to acquire Tokul East that required many people to commit say, $100-200 over a year I would be all for that. I see that as a pragmatic solution to a very narrowly focused problem. But that's just me, I use Tokul a lot.

    The long term answer is for mtn bikers to be more involved with groups like CLC and be able to be involved with these deals as they occur, and make sure public access is addressed when conservation easements are negotiated.
    I couldn't agree more on this. The real solution is to stay on top of access issues as they arise. Be it Tiger Mtn, Issaquah, or pending Wilderness. I think we are starting to see that speaking up can have a real impact on land management decisions (King County, Forest Service, etc). Regarding the 90K and Hancock it seems like we may be too late on that one. I get the feeling that Hancock is starting a long term process of closing their property to recreational use so I don't see future access easements happening with them. Call this a learning moment I suppose.

    Forgive my ignorance but who/what is CLC?

  49. #49
    I should be out riding
    Reputation: ACree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Posts
    1,505
    Quote Originally Posted by mwestra2 View Post
    An easement for public access would be awesome, but why would they consider it?

    $$...? The amount involved would be such a tiny drop in the bucket? Manulife Financial posted a third quarter loss of $1.3 billion, a market cap of $21 billion and invested assets near 1/4 trillion C$.

    Corporate citizenship...? IMHO Hancock's real agenda is clear: they want users out. The $75 fee / recreation program must represent a net cost for them and is just a first step in getting recreational use to go away.
    They'd probably want $ up front (at least I would if I were in their shoes), just like when they sell a conservation easement. It'd be a means of generating return to their investors, and best of all, would have little to no cost to them if they partnered with another organization to manage the use - similar to Galby.

    Keep in mind, Hancock and Metlife don't own this land for themselves. They're asset managers, the manage investments in timber made by institutional investors. That $75 shouldn't be hitting Hancock's bottom line, it should be going to the actual owners of the property, who pay Hancock to manage it. Those owners are pension funds, endowments, etc.

  50. #50
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    210
    Rat them out to KOMO 4 Problem Solvers. Not sure if I'm kidding or not

    Problem Solvers | Seattle News, Weather, Sports, Breaking News | KOMO News | Content

Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. VA State Forest Use Permit
    By MTBigSky in forum Virginia, WV, Maryland, DC, Delaware
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-17-2009, 06:40 AM
  2. VA State Forest Use Permit?
    By Trizz in forum Virginia, WV, Maryland, DC, Delaware
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-01-2009, 10:36 AM
  3. North Mills River Forest Management Proposal
    By Mike Brown in forum North & South Carolina
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 06-21-2009, 08:40 AM
  4. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-16-2008, 04:51 PM
  5. Southern California Forest Management Plan
    By TCB in forum California - Socal
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-05-2005, 12:14 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •