The Ludington Dunes Conservancy noted on April 19th (listing media sources) that:

"The Michigan Natural Resources Trust Fund Board has recommended an additional $7.5 million to purchase approximately 337 acres of private land adjacent to Ludington State Park in Mason County. This adds to $5 million previously recommended by the board for acquisition of the land, for a total of $12.5 million. The board made the recommendations for the purchase – which is still being negotiated – at its April 11 meeting in Bath.

"The property, currently held by Sargent Minerals-Ludington LLC, has long been viewed as a high priority for the state to acquire to make part of Ludington State Park. The land has significant natural resource attributes such as critical dunes, inland water features, and overall connection with adjacent recreational amenities at one of the most visited state parks in Michigan."

Let us take a look at the three major purchases of land made by the US government in history before considering the numbers behind this deal that may happen between the Michigan government and Sargent Sands.

The Louisiana Purchase (1803) had the US government pay France $15 million (equivalent to $300 million in 2016) for 828,000 sq mi/529,920,000 acres of land.  In today's dollars, this amounts to $0.57/acre.


The Gadsden Purchase (1853-4) had the US government pay Mexico $10 million (equivalent to $270 million in 2017) for 29760 sq. mi/19,046,400 acres of land.  In today's dollars, this amounts to $14.18/acre.


The Alaska Purchase (1867) had the US government pay Russia $7.2 million (equivalent to $105 million in 2016) 586,412 sq. mi/375,303,680 acres of land.  In today's dollars, this amounts to  $0.28/acre.

It's quite telling that even in numbers adjusted for inflation, that the acquisition of the Louisiana Territory and the Alaska Territory are still well under a dollar an acre.  But our state government is looking to buy for $12.5 million what amounts to 337 acres of little more than sand-mined out scrub land for $37,902 per acre.   That's over 132,000 times the amount paid per acre for resource-rich Alaska, and about 66,500 times the amount paid per acre for the more pleasantly-climed acreage of the Louisiana Territory.  

Consider also that when you look for large (100+) acreage of undeveloped land for sale in Mason County, you don't see any listed for over $2000 per acre-- and these actually have livable hunting cabins on them already.  Does anybody really believe this land has an actual value of $37,000 per acre despite its close proximity to Lake Michigan?  

Views: 827

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I heard there were plans at one time years ago to connect Lower-Hamlin, with Lake Michigan. Growing up, I lived in that exact area. It was always my belief that the mining of sand for glass was also part of an excavation process for that future goal. This property is nearly priceless. I believe it should stay as it has always been, forever. There was once an attempt to put condos on the first-curve. Thankfully, this fell through but, the damage of excavating the massive hill on the first-curve has forever destroyed the landscape. As the years go by, we all see that the beach front is becoming more and more inaccessible to the Public. This land should be purchased to preserve it for Public use but, we need a better deal. Yes, it is most definitely worth that much an acre if it were to be developed. But, Sargent Sands has made enough money and should realize the best interest of this property and, they should consider selling half of the property at their price and then donate the remaining acres in a gesture of good faith. The lower park could be named "Sargents".  Perhaps they could get a tax break on the earned income? We definitely need a better deal.

I agree with John. This is no ordinary large tract of land. In my opinion this land is priceless. Fresh water dunes can be found at very few places on Earth. This property is like no other that can be found outside of Michigan. The State had a chance to buy this years ago at a bargain but balked on the idea. Now that Sargent wants to sell, I say, take the deal and run so the land can remain forever "The Ludington sand dunes". The sand which was mined years ago was for making molds for casting metal parts. The current mining of sand is for the oil fracking business. The sand is mixed with chemicals and pumped into the ground which forces oil deposits into waiting drilled wells.

Dune pond at Ludington State Park

Ludington State Park from 2000 ft.

You are valuing the land wrong X.

It isn't the value per acre it is the recoverable resources on the land.

It is a bargain at $12,500,000 and should be purchased. 

It should have been purchased years ago when it was less expensive.

It means more to this area than the boondoggle West End Scheme or the pending bowling alley fire barn fiasco. 

According to the DNR there are potentially 12,000,000 tons of sand on Sargent property.

About $1/ton for the recoverable assets sounds cheap. (Currently sand goes for $10-$30/ton depending on use.)

I hate to see local jobs lost, but it this case buying out Sargent's is the right thing.

Shinblind, you effectively though indirectly make my point.  That plot of land is currently valuable to Sargent Sands and valuable for our national energy policy, for the reason Willy mentions, it's why they have a permit to responsibly mine sand off it until at least 2021.  This makes it a valuable piece of land to Sargent Sands just for that consideration.  Why buy it when it has such value?

There will come a time when the sand mining there will not be economically sound for one reason or another.  The acreage at that point will likely be even easier to develop for trails, lakes and stuff then.  Those developers who want to invest in some sort of condo development there now cannot be encouraged by all of the open condos in condo-glutted Ludington.  I just can't see the MI DNR investing $12.5 million of public funds to buy this fairly small portion of land now or in the near future without any justification of that cost to the tax and fee payers of this state.

 

Where does the MI DNR suddenly come up with this extra $12.5 Million when it always claims it's broke and has to lay off workers and cut way back on everything? Like planting Salmon and other fish? It's ludicrous to imagine they have all this extra Millions of $$$ when they totally contradict it in so many other areas!!! Esp. after all the previous lawsuits that Seargent family has had to fight in courts all these last 50 years or so too! And what does the DNR plan to do with it anyhow? It certainly isn't to make money mining sand, nor build any condos or other public access. It simply is to own more public land, and then what? So we can all go dune riding, swim in ponds, picnic, walk more trails, camp? I really doubt that totally. I think  it's just for keep's sake, to take with public money, and never give anything back. Shocking to see this happen, and even more shocking to have our tax monies again pay for an extravagance that has no future for us to benefit from in some way that will pay back what is forfeited. If the DNR was to put in another campground of 500-1000 campsites, then it might have some payback, but, as it stands right now, it's a zero payback. Meanwhile, the LSP campground are again overbooked for most of the prime season, so camping there is at a minimum yet.

I to share concerns about the purchase price. I'm not sure how it's being paid for, possibly with money from the state parks access fee on license plates. This purchase is more of a preservation act than an investment. If the State had not preserved the original land where LSP now exists it would have been lost to development years ago. There are places and things worth preserving especially special places that are being destroyed and will cease to exist. If we think of LSP dunes as just a pile of sand and nothing more then spending millions of dollars so save it, of course makes no sense, but preserving something as unique as freshwater dunes makes sense not only in the present but for future generations. What is Stearns Park and beach worth? Why not sell it and get Ludington out of debt and repair infrastructure, after all it's just a big sand box that needs constant attention which eats up tax dollars. Wouldn't condos be a better use for the land. Why should Ludington be in the beach business anyway? Putting Stearns beach sand to good use by selling it for fracking wells makes more economical sense than having strangers come to town and lay around on it. There is no question in my mind that the State should purchase the dunes but of course the price is going to be a sticking point. I think if an agreeable price were to be settled on then most people would be on board and agreeable with the acquisition of that beautiful piece of property.

Willy 

What you said  about Stearns Park reminds me of a few years ago when a local real estate persona talked about the city selling Oriole Field for a condo development.

He said the city could relocate Oriole Field to new athletic field, the one located by the waste water treatment plant. 

Fortunately the city wasn't foolish enough back then to adopt this plan .

But now the city somehow believes that locating the splash pad next to a chemical factory is a good idea.

What fools the city has become.

X

While there is a severe shortage of year around occupancy of the condo's in Ludington, there is no over supply of unsold condo's in Ludington.

Most of the condo's were purchased as an investment, I talked with many owners whom bought multiple units for this purpose, indeed some even titled  them to other family members to minimize the tax bite. The kicker to a lot of them was the ability to rent them out during the summer months which will make their returns even sweeter over time.

And while a condo development on Sargent Sand property might not be structured as poorly as the City of Ludington's structured theirs none the less with their personal man made lake frontage there should be no shortage of willing buyers. I don't see the issue with Sargent Sand profiting by selling to the State.

I much rather see this becomes part of State Park rather than turned into a mini Silver Lake for condo owners.

Now at maximum production the State estimates there to be 15-20 years of sand to be mined. And while I believe this estimate of 12,000,000 tons of sand to be low, none the less at some point in the future the real estate vales will be such that this area will be developed unless it is bought by the State Park before hand. 

Once the sand is gone or the area developed into condo's then the opportunity to purchase this will be gone forever with it.

The DNR Trust Fund gets it's revenue from royalties on the sale and lease of state-owned minerals (primarily oil and gas).  I do not like so much money going to this fund.  In 2016 the DNRTF spent $47 million, mostly for land acquisitions as it does typically.  I'd much rather see this money go towards the state's infrastructure.

As for the dollar amount, I see Sargent as a private business that is solely responsible for the valuation of their land.  I'm sure SS not only looks a it's visible value, but also what money SS can earn with this land till at least 2021.  I don't take issue with what SS has done in the past or is currently doing.  I do appreciate that SS is here and able to employ many workers.  As of now, they don't really use much of the acreage they have.  Plus in 71 SS gave 409 acres including coastline.  

I hike that dune area a couple times a year.  If developed into trails or campsites would make the area less useful then it is now.  It is a beautiful area!  ..as is.

Great points, Brad!  I have to admit to regularly and innocently trespassing through Sargent Sands property over my lifetime, and never have I been given any grief by the SS people for doing so.  I may have denigrated it as scrub and wasteland in the article above, but these types of areas can be beautiful in their own right, and I agree that trails and touristification has the potential to take away from the area's charm.

I have good reason to believe that the importance of this property acquisition being made now is due in large part to those who oppose the fracking process having some political clout within the MI DNR Trust Fund.  To those people mining sand is bad, but when you use that mined sand to mine oil and gas, then that is intolerable. 

My understanding is that the DNR Trust Fund was established for the main purpose of purchasing critical lands. Wasting that money on the States infrastructure is throwing  money down a rat hole. We are already taxed to death in order to pay for infrastructure. Taking money from the Trust Fund would be the same thing the State has been doing with all the gas tax and other taxes that were supposed to be used for road repair. That works well, right?

My end point would be that this money would be used for state issues we already pay taxes on, and therefore lowering our taxes.  Rather then on land grabs and thoughtless projects.

RSS

© 2024   Created by XLFD.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service