I was corrected on that two posts later.
I still don't see why those tracts aren't put up for sale? There is always someone that will buy an asset at some price.
Lighten up Francis.
Walt I understand your feelings about the State owning land I look at it like this.
If they sell a Capitol asset to plug a funding leak, the next year the budget shortfall will STILL be there, but now the asset is gone.
The land around the State Prison above Atmore is a prime example. YEARS ago (when most of us were in diapers) this land fed a majority of the prisoners (State and County) in this state (or so I've been told). Can't work them anymore, sooooooo........
For a bunch of years it served as a half assed cattle operation. They considered selling it several years ago. It would likely have brought $2k an acre I suspect, and that only for the farmable or pasture ground. A fair amount of it is gullies, creeks, etc. and basically useless.
Then inspiration hit. They leased it out for farming (did Draper N of Mtgy the same way).
NOW, the State DOC receives anywhere from $65 to $135 an acre for farming rights (on the farmable portion of course) AND they STILL OWN THE ASSET. In 10-15 years they will get as much in rent as they'd have gotten for selling it, and they still own it, and it can still produce revenue.
Had they sold it, that money would have disappeared like a popcorn fart in a hurricane.
The OTHER SIDE to this is EVERY ACRE that gets farmed supports businesses in Atmore and the surrounding areas. Seed, chemical and fertilizer dealers benefit. Dealers sell equipment. Fuel, parts, and labor come from the local economy.
If they'd sold it, maybe some of this happens, maybe not. Word was the Indians would have bought most of it for cattle (which wouldn't have NEARLY the same affect on the local economy, not 5% of it).
In my opinion, this was a win-win.