[Vision2020] Advanced Real Estate Question

[Darrell Keim]

But moving the stateline would in no way solve the long term planning.
Sure, it would solve the Hawkins issue.  But, what about when someone wants
to move in to Hawkins?  I'm sure they will.  Do we move the line again?  and
again?  and again?  Simply not a reasonable solution.

On Feb 11, 2008 3:34 PM, Darrell Keim <keim152 at gmail.com> wrote:

> But moving the stateline would in no way solve the long term planning.
> Sure, it would solve the Hawkins issue.  But, what about when someone wants
> to move in to Hawkins?  I'm sure they will.  Do we move the line again?  and
> again?  and again?  Simply not a reasonable solution.
>
>
>
> On Feb 11, 2008 3:00 PM, Kenneth Marcy <kmmos1 at verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > Good questions. I am not suggesting that Hawkins give up their bundle of
> > rights to the land they now have. What I am suggesting is that the State
> > of
> > Washington sell a portion of its domain of statehood to the State of
> > Idaho,
> > thus moving the boundary between the states. By domain of statehood I
> > mean
> > a right held by the state, not by an individual property owner, to claim
> > a
> > particular parcel of land as part of that state. I suggest this is a
> > separate property right, distinct from Hawkins' ownership interest, that
> > can be transferred for consideration, $1 or more, as agreed, between the
> > states.
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20080211/47833c69/attachment.html