Just wondering if the mining company is paying the same back taxes (times the years in the program), fee's, etc for the 3600 acres if removed from the Managed Forest land as the rest of us would have to do. If they are getting a legislative break...so should the rest of us.
folks in wisconsin should send stuffed lap dogs to this elected representative. She is a lap dog of the corporate elite and yet she thinks she is a leader at ALEC.
Wouldn't it have been more cost effective to remove the land from the Managed Forests Program and maintain it as private? They would only have to pay $477k in back taxes, plus be taxed going forward - it seems like it would take quite some time for this to outweigh the ongoing costs of the security company, but I don't know the tax rate vs the run rate for the security contractors to compare them.
Anyway, it sounds like the land shouldn't be in the managed forests program anyway, if they don't want anyone to have access to it and they plan to remove large swaths of the forest itself in order to do their pit mining.
This is COMMON with Google. The WEB CRAWLER with PUT A RED WARNING on web Pages some PERSON has deemed "NASTY" Google has stated THEY HAVE TROOPS ON THE GROUND in SYRIA & MICRO-MANAGED the ARAB SPRING. Google is A GOVERNMENT AGENCY.
Pages