valhalla360 wrote:
JaxDad wrote:
Now you’re talking about a whole other kettle of (really stinky) fish, PROFIT.
I was talking about “costs” and more particularly “subsidies”.
Further still, there’s a whole other topic which I won’t go into, other than to mention it, not discuss it, that is can you even use the word “profit” when you’re talking about a public service?
Obviously there will be a few how would like the sale of public lands to pay down debt and have “State Parks” become “private” for-profit parks, but that’s not the subject here.
So you are suggesting the land has no value if it's owned by the citizens of the state but privately owned property has value? That makes no sense.
Hate to see it happen but these valuable pieces of property could be sold in many cases for astronomical amounts and (at least in theory) used to reduce taxes. It's only if you decide to ignore all the financials that you can claim it's not subsidized.
I guess you didn’t read my post.
