Market Watch

[Hay Dude]

Of course they do. rScotty is just obtuse and argumentative.

The other thing noteworthy about our nearest giant city (Philly) is that they survive off of money from the suburbs. The suburbanites go to the city and blow millions and millions on pro sports tickets, parking, museums, the arts, etc., but most of the city residents and politicians hate the suburbanites.

Without the city, the suburbs would have no “culture”. OK, we would still survive, though.
Without the suburbs, the city wouldn’t exist-they’d have no money. They can’t survive without outside money from the ‘burbs and state/fed money.

Yet here we are, people from the burbs go to the city, get beat up, robbed, car jacked and continue to be their “banker”.

 

[jyoutz]

Certainly possible on the info.

I looked into it for my forest land in Thurston County Washington and was told being salt water front with 2 salmon bearing streams made me ineligible for anything but a conservation easement consideration.. or I could sell for the tax roll assessed value or donate to the district in a very simple process.

The 20 acres of Live Oak in Oakland comes under the cities tree preservation ordinance... cutting down any single tree requires an expensive permit with lengthy public review process and if granted all work must be done under the supervision of a city arborist to protect nearby flora and if a threatened species found... forget about it.

Thinning by limbing up is required for fire so long as tree not compromised... no permit required...

A friend is a licensed contractor doing mitigation and fire trail maintenance...

Before he can move a fallen log it first has to be approved by a team of UC grads hired to assure moving will not harm habitat or increase erosion...

A salamander under a fallen tree will stop the project in its tracks.

I don’t know about lands that fall under urban boundaries. I’ve never worked in those areas. But in any case, consulting with a local licensed consulting forester or state forester will give you the best advice.

 

[jyoutz]

Are you saying that the landowner must be living below the poverty line to qualify? What does 'Living below the poverty line" actually mean?

No, I’m pointing out that these programs are largely focused on people who are not living below the poverty line (middle class and wealthy). Few poor people are forest landowners. But these programs aren’t based on income, they are based on the land conditions and needs for treating the forest.

 

[two_bit_score]

Without the suburbs, the city wouldn’t exist-they’d have no money. They can’t survive without outside money from the ‘burbs and state/fed money.

Most urban 'cities' are money rat holes.

 

[two_bit_score]

No, I’m pointing out that these programs are largely focused on people who are not living below the poverty line (middle class and wealthy). Few poor people are forest landowners. But these programs aren’t based on income, they are based on the land conditions and needs for treating the forest.

Ok, so that was very confusing for a country boy like me. So if these programs are not targeted toward economically disadvantaged areas or individuals it sounds like you were trying to state a half-truth to bolster a point about federal money going into rural areas.

 

[jyoutz]

Ok, so that was very confusing for a country boy like me. So if these programs are not targeted toward economically disadvantaged areas or individuals it sounds like you were trying to state a half-truth to bolster a point about federal money going into rural areas.

No targeting of people or classes of people. The focus isn’t on people; it’s on getting forest lands managed. The qualifying criteria is whether or not your forestland meets productivity standards and whether it needs thinning to improve timber production, wildlife habit, or needs hazardous fuels reduction. Not much different than the CRP program for farmlands, except the forestry programs focus on productive lands and CRP focuses on unproductive lands. There isn’t any half truths here. There are lots of USDA programs that funnel federal funds to rural areas. Here’s a huge one: all state forestry departments receive the bulk of their funding for forest management, landowner assistance, and wildfire management as federal funding though my agency (USDA Forest Service). Not state legislatures. And these programs are largely focused on rural concerns. Except for the food assistance programs like SNAP, USDA is an agency focused on helping rural lands and people. And we’re talking $billions$.

 

[two_bit_score]

And these programs are largely focused on rural concerns. Except for the food assistance programs like SNAP, USDA is an agency focused on helping rural lands and people. And we’re talking $billions$.

You say largely but not entirely because you know those programs are initiated in rural areas, of course, because that is where our food is grown. The money continues to extend across the entire country and especially into inner cities. Huge welfare programs are mostly needed in inner cities. Sanctuary cities especially consume huge amounts of those tax $$.

 

[jyoutz]

You say largely but not entirely because you know those programs are initiated in rural areas, of course, because that is where our food is grown. The money continues to extend across the entire country and especially into inner cities. Huge welfare programs are mostly needed in inner cities. Sanctuary cities especially consume huge amounts of those tax $$.

No doubt that cities receive a lot of tax dollars. So do our rural areas. The rural area programs are a large amount per recipient. Let’s just acknowledge that federal dollars fund both urban and rural communities. I don’t think that’s a bad thing. It’s investing in America and rural/urban needs are different but both are important to our country.

 

[2manyrocks]

So many of these programs aren't investing at all because the outcome measurements show they cost a lot of money with few measurable results to show for it. There is a state jobs creation program near me that has operated since the mid 1980s that hasn't generated many jobs for anyone except the people that run it. Can't figure out why it still exists since there was a move to shut it down, but it moved to a new office building about 5 years ago.

 

[plastikosmd]

Funding food production or keeping wildlife alive makes sense (to me)

I always vote for those grants when they pop up on a ballot



Wildlife Sanctuaries =100%
Human Sanctuaries=‘hard no