by Dan Salmon » Sat Mar 12, 2011 2:18 pm
The guy was in business for profit and obviously at any cost. I don't think the state should pay anything for the property. The building and maintenance of the fence should be an ongoing cost drain on the unscrupulous, profit at any cost former business and current landowner.
The State and Federal Governments hold Companies that pollute the landscape (Paper Companies in the Fox Valley for instance) financially responsible, why shouldn't these venison farmers be held to the same standards? I'm not certain, but would imagine that he took advantage of tax laws and subsidies while in business and would certainly make for reimbursement of those, at the very least, a credit to the state toward the now on going maintenance of the fence by the state of the now polluted piece of property.
I personally believe, and think a lot of others would agree in this specific case only, that the state should just take the property under eminent domain and be done with it. Mostly, because the state will now have on going cost to maintain the fences and monitor property.