After reading your article due to mineral rights, I understand there is a bill, HB 1281, introduced by Elwood Thorpe, D-Minot, which states he wants to create a data base to track all mineral rights at a cost of $2 per mineral acre to the taxpayer.
As I see it, this is a very bad decision because the state of North Dakota already taxes oil companies and collected more money than ever before in history. So we can only hope it is spent wisely and some invested proper.
Now our forefathers came here and homesteaded these places surely had no idea about oil. But luckily, a lot of minerals passed to their daughters, sons and now great-grandsons or daughters.
So is it right for a handful of senators to pass a bill of this sort to collect millions of taxpayers’ dollars? Will it create millions so we can hire several people with computers to sit around and probably hire a good secretary to do the work and the rest drive around and act important at our cost?
With all the technology and computers today, the land man or woman can go to the courthouse and pull up this information easily.
Now what I do think is we vote in our senators to go to Bismarck to do a good job for the people and by the people, to maybe get a little tax relief once in awhile and make it easier for taxpayers and not create more taxes.
These kind of people we do not need at the state level to make those decisions. So I urge you to e-mail or write to your senators to stop this bill.
Roy Simonson
Epping
Comments
T.R. wrote on Feb 23, 2009 11:51 PM:
royalty owner wrote on Feb 21, 2009 3:57 PM:
scott kemmis wrote on Feb 21, 2009 9:53 AM:
- nationalize energy (government minerals)
- nationalize banks
- nationalize agriculture (or is it already: farm programs, crp, conservation easements)
- nationalize health care
- tax reform, how much do you make? send it in.
- Carbon tax (govenment will tell me what to drive and where to live)
Scott A. Kemmis
Glendive, MT "
grandma sue wrote on Feb 21, 2009 9:46 AM:
3rd Generation Mineral Owner wrote on Feb 19, 2009 1:21 PM:
My post should read: "Accordingly, Thorpe is NOT motivated by a desire to ascertain ownership of mineral interests."
Thorpe's bill imposes an onerous yearly tax upon the owners of non-producing mineral interests for the clear purpose of financially coercing mineral owners into surrendering their interests to the surface owner. Thorpe cannot pretend that his proposed legislation has any other purpose because we know better.
North Dakota Century Code 38-18.1 already provides a procedure for mineral owners to record their ownership interests. The law already provides specific procedures that may be followed if the identity of the mineral owner cannot be ascertained or if the interest has been abandoned. Accordingly, a separate database for tax purposes is not necessary to keep track of the identities of people who own non-producing minerals. In other words, Thorpe alleges that his bill somehow fixes a problem that doesn't even exist. Thorpe erroneously believes that North Dakota voters are fools. "
3rd Generation Mineral Owner wrote on Feb 18, 2009 7:29 PM:
Accordingly, Thorp is motivated by a desire to ascertain ownership of mineral interests. Instead, he desires to coerce the owners of non-producing mineral interests into deeding their interests to the surface owner. He fails to understand that he represents ALL the people, not just surface owners.
My brothers, sisters, and I are the descendents of great-grandparents who homesteaded land in Williams County. Our great-grandparents acquired the homestead quarter and eventually bought more land over the years. Our grandfather took over the farming operation. When he sold the land, he reserved mineral interests for himself and his heirs -- for us. It's our family legacy.
We share 610 net NON-PRODUCING mineral acres. A $2.00 an acre tax means that we would have to pay $1220.00 EVERY YEAR to the State of North Dakota in order to retain our family legacy. Representative Thorpe is pushing for the yearly tax in the hope that it will coerce us (and others like us) to surrender our property interests because it will be too expensive to hold those interests year after year when they produce no income whatsoever. His desire to reunify mineral and surface interests to the benefit of the surface owner is insufficient justification for the harm he does to mineral owners.
I will remember the names of OUR representatives who have pushed for this coercive bill the next time that I enter the voting booth. I won't be voting for them to represent me--because, obviously, they're NOT representing me. "