Deeded VERSUS Leased Property
STATE VERSUS FEDERAL

I have been thinking about the "Leased Property", both State and Federal and have asked many questions over the years. Being both a Washington Realtor, landlord, and Idaho property owner, I would have reservations about leased property.

As everyone knows, leasing or renting property can have it's downside. The biggest one is the one of selling the property, the other is changing the terms and conditions of the lease, and mainly "raising the rents". If you own the property, taxes can go up, but unless the property is taken by the government for public use, no one can force you to sell it.

Our family looked at property on the lake for sale on and off for nearly twenty years, finally we were able to purchase 14 years ago. Deeded property on the lake is difficult to find, and costly when found. There is a pent-up demand for waterfront that is growing year by year. Even the leased properties are expensive and hard to find.

I also looked into both State and Federal Leases several years ago and found them to be quite different from each other. 50 and 100 years ago these leases were written for 50 an 99 years, at unbelievable low prices. Those days are gone, and when new leases are written the prices are higher and higher with escalation clauses. I have heard that some Federal Leases were Phased out (Bartoo Island) as well as some others. STATE LEASES: The State Leases are interesting in that if the State refuses to renew your lease, they must pay you for the improvements on the lot.

FOREST SERVICE LEASES: If the Forest Service does not renew, you must REMOVE all improvements and restore the site to it's natural setting. If you don't the Government will give you a 60 day notice, and eventually burn it down and clean up the site and BILL you for doing it. (For example-"Lone Pine") I have been told that the "State Lease" money goes to the State of Idaho for the Education Fund. Sounds good? Well, maybe, maybe not.

The money goes to "Boise", the Capital and it is distributed to the ENTIRE STATE for higher education. I guess that would be OKAY IF Bonner County schools could pass a levy or had all kinds of money sitting around to fund the local schools, but they do not. Remember a few years ago when the roof fell in on the School in Priest River? Only then, did they manage to get a decent roof on the building. The East Side of Priest Lake is remote.

They have more miles of road per student than anywhere in the state. The state requires school buses but they do not provide adequate funds for bussing, gas and plowing. Even though the improvements are taxed, and some of that money goes to local schools, none of the lease payments do. That is why I think the state should sell the leased lots to the homeowners, so the money could be used for local schools and roads.

It could be phased in over 20 years by a lottery. 5% of the leased property could be sold every year for the next 20 years. This way, the "Education Fund" would not be chopped off all at once, but gradually more funding channeled to the local area that has the expense of the roads, schools, law enforcement, and fire protection. This would also give the home owners more security in knowing that they won't be kicked off in the next ten years, and also won't flood the market with deeded property. The homeowner would have first right of refusal to purchase the property. Also, those properties would become more valuable, creating more revenue for the state in the long run. I am not an Idaho resident, but I do think the current system is unfair to the people of Northern Idaho. Just an idea.