from:
Gallery
July 1978
Vol. 6, No. 8
�1978 Montcalm Publishing Corporation
All rights reserved
New York, NY
-----
"This land Is your land, this land Is my land," goes the popular folk song.
So how come twenty corporations own close to forty-two million acres of land
In the United States-land In many cases obtained Illegally, held Illegally,
and abused? Here's a shocking look at
Who Owns AMERICA?
by William Hoffman
The reason land is a good investment is that there will never be more of it.
People can produce more automobiles, ships, planes, computers, furniture,
homes, cotton, and grain, but they cannot produce more land. On a planet
experts say is already overcrowded, the ownership of land assumes increasing
importance.
It may surprise you that no study has ever been undertaken to determine who
the biggest private landholders in this country are. The government has not
bothered to do so. Yet, you are entitled to this information. You have a
right to know who owns much of America, and you have a stake in what private
owners are doing with American land.
The largest landholder in the United States is the federal government. That
is another way of saying the land belongs to the American people. In 1973 we
held 760,676,387.7 acres. One way a corporation increases its landholdings is
by buying cheaply, or having given to it, a portion of federal land. The
Public Land Law Review Commission in California, in a report titled One Third
of the Nation's Land, recommended that much of our public land be opened up
for private exploitation.
The Ralph Nader report, Politics of Land, said this about the Commission's
recommendation: "Since the Public Law Review Commission's Advisory Council is
rnade up of industry executives (from the American Mining Congress, Natural
Coal Association, Jefferson Plywood Company, Getty Oil Company, Weyerhaeuser
Company ... over half of the Council's, members work for interests with
profit stakes in public land disposition), it is not surprising that all of
the dominant uses involve economic gains."
Much of the land currently in the hands of private companies should legally
belong to someone else. It was acquired through fraud, force, and deceit.
Most people know that American Indians were forced to leave their lands at
gunpoint and that other lands "given" to Indians by treaty, for "as long as
the waters run and the sun rises" are now owned by big corporations.
A recent lawsuit filed by American Indians in Maine demanded a sizable
portion of land that had been granted by a federal treaty. Although the
Indians promised that the land could be used by everyone in Maine, there was
a great hue and cry � especially from businessmen � about the danger of a
single tribe owning so much territory. There has been no similar response to
the fact that only five private corporations own more land than is in all of
Maine.
Big landlords, in collusion
with the government, are
shortchanging the
American people. Vast
amounts of federal land
are being sold or leased at
a fraction of their value for
exploration and drilling.
The Homestead Act of 1862 was one of the great frauds perpetrated on the
American people, although the Act's avowed purpose was to help them. In
reality, it was a giveaway for the rich, a gigantic hoax that even today
benefits big companies.
The Homestead Act provided that any person over the age of twenty-one could
file claim to 160 acres of federal land in the western territories and
states. It should have given land to the poor. But, as John Upton Terrell
pointed out in his book, Land Grab, "An enormous number of homesteaders were
dummies for cattlemen and lumber companies. Perhaps no more than one acre in
every ten went to the needy settlers, whom the Homestead Act was intended to
assist."
The government took back some tracts of land from the homesteaders, using the
power of eminent domain � the right of government to take over private
property if it deems such action to be in the public good � and sold or gave
them to the big railroads. The land, of course, has increased hundreds of
times in value since that time.
What is wrong, you might ask, with big companies owning vast tracts of land?
Is this not a country that prides itself in allowing citizens and
corporations to accumulate wealth and be rewarded to the extent and ability
of their efforts?
The problem lies not in how much land these companies own, but in how and to
what purposes they use the land. Historically, big companies have shown
themselves to be notorious misusers and abusers of land. Coal companies have
strip-mined vast tracts of land, leaving it ugly and unusable. Strip-mined
land won't support crops or hold back heavy rain damage. Big companies have
mowed down trees like so many blades of grass, reducing our precious
forestlands to a fraction of what they once were.
Big corporations boast that great size is efficient, but this is not true.
Department of Agriculture figures show that big corporate farms produce 50
percent less food per acre than small independent farms. Why? Because big
farms don't have to be efficient. Monopolies can charge whatever market
prices they want. Also, big landowners tend to use their land not for what
society most needs, but for what is most profitable. Thus, farmland is turned
into suburban housing tracts, and low-cost housing is dynamited to make room
for skyscrapers. The farmland often is not even used, keeping the supply of
food low and the price of food high. And, as we all must know by now, the
government often pays big landowners not to grow food.
Just as important as how much land a corporation or individual owns is where t
hat land is. Clearly, a prime piece of real estate in Manhattan or on
Chicago's Gold Coast, or rich forestland, is more valuable than a large tract
situated in a swamp. A study of the biggest landholders in America indicates
that they do not invest in swampland.
Even today big landholders, in collusion with the government, are
shortchanging the American people. Federal land belongs to the American
people. Yet, vast amounts of it are being sold or leased, at a fraction of
its value, for exploration and drilling, without our consent, and often
without our knowledge until the deed is done. But these oil companies are not
gambling or speculating; they have already studied the land and know it
contains oil. Thus, the government has assured the oil companies low overhead
to add to their immense profits on our land-land for which they pay little
and which they will probably damage irreparably in the bargain.
Months of poring over Department of Agriculture figures and Securities and
Exchange Commision data � something the government itself should have
done-revealed a picture of this country's twenty largest corporate
landholders and to what ends they have used American land. Except for the
possibility that much land is controlled covertly, this picture is as
accurate as research can make it.
The Twenty Largest Corporate Landholders Acres
1. International Paper Company 7,089,000
2. Weyerhaeuser Company 5,700,000
3. Southern Pacific Company 3,822,900
4. Burlington Northern, Inc. 2,737,500
5. Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation 2,674,000
6. Champion International Corporation 2,400,000
7. Boise Cascade Corporation 2,023,000
8. Union Camp Corporation 1,556,000
9. Mead Corporation 1,507,000
10. Texas Pacific Land Trust 1,437,900
11. Potlatch Corporation 1,427,000
12. Diamond International Corporation 1,386,000
13. The Continental Group, Inc. 1,191,000
14. ITT 1,130,000
15. Westvaco Corporation 1,069,000
16. Time, Inc. 1,035,000
17. Procter and Gamble Company 960,000
18. Union Pacific Corporation 888,000
19. Tenneco, Inc. 856,600
20. Inland Container Corporation 850,800
Number One � International Paper Company
With 7,089,000 acres, this is the largest corporate landholder in the United
States. It controls land ten times the size of Rhode Island � more land than
the states of Rhode Island, Delaware, and Connecticut combined. What sort of
citizen has International Paper been?
Between 1974 and 1977, International Paper Company frequently raised prices
on paper products and jumped the cost of newsprint by $20 to $25 per ton.
International Paper's net profits during this period generally rose between
20 and 80 percent each quarter over the same quarter of the previous year.
Occasionally, there was a slack spell, usually caused by the company's
increasing prices in a sluggish market that could not sustain the rise. In
other words, paper users bought less or, in some cases, went out of business.
But in general, the profit growth was huge. When a slack period did occur,
rather than cutting prices or accepting even slightly lower profit rates, the
company laid workers off. The employees of I.P. suffered, not the stockholders
or the officers of the company. At no time did any officer take a pay cut.
Huge as International Paper's landholdings are in the United States, they are
larger still in other countries. The company is reported to hold more than 16
million acres of land outside of the United States mainland.
International Paper makes paper and wood products (although in 1975 it got
into the oil business by merging with General Crude Oil Company), and it had
a net profit in 1976 of $254 million. The profit might have been higher if
International Paper had not been fighting so many lawsuits.
In 1974 International Paper faced an antitrust suit brought by Atlantic
Gummed Paper. In the same year, the Federal Trade Commission accepted a
consent order prohibiting the company from engaging in anti-competitive
pricing and shipping practices. Also in 1974, the company was accused of
being a monopoly in a $10-million, triple-damage suit brought by Essex
Systems. Again in 1974, International Paper pleaded no contest in a
price-fixing case. And finally in 1974, the New York Stock Exchange suspended
trading on the company's preferred stock because of the small number of
shares in the public's hands.
International Paper's image did not improve in subsequent years. In 1977 a
shareholder initiated a class-action suit, charging that the company had
filed a misleading prospectus in connection with a public offering of 2.25
million shares of common stock. Once again in 1977, the company was accused
by two box manufacturers of antitrust violations. Most interesting of all,
perhaps, International Paper acknowledged in 1976 that it had made payments
to foreign commercial customers.
Good business ethics do not seem to have been a hallmark of International
Paper Company's operations.
Number Two � Weyerhaeuser
Company
This huge corporation (5,700,000 acres in the U.S.), which advertises itself
on television as "the tree-growing company," is in reality a tree-cutting
company that is viewed with great suspicion by environmental groups.
Weyerhaeuser Company controls more land than the states of Rhode Island and
Connecticut combined.
Weyerhaeuser has one affiliate and four 100-percent-owned subsidiary
companies doing business in racist-ruled South Africa. (There are nations
that boycott South Africa's businesses because of its inhumane policies.)
Weyerhaeuser's companies are Barlow Weyerhaeuser Packaging Investments (Pty.)
Ltd.; Barlow Weyerhaeuser Properties (Pty.) Ltd.; Barlow Weyerhaeuser (Natal)
(Pty.) Ltd.; Barlow Weyerhaeuser (Cape) (Pty.) Ltd.; and Barlow Weyerhaeuser
(Tvl.) (Pty.) Ltd.
If the way in which it spends its money is any indication, Weyerhaeuser has
not been a responsible corporate citizen. The Wall Street Journal of
September 27,1976 reported that the company had made "$1.2 million of
improper foreign payments" over the past five years. "Improper foreign
payments" is usually a euphemism for bribes.
Also in 1976, the Federal Trade Commission ordered Weyerhaeuser to stop
pricing practices that could boost the cost of basic construction materials.
In 1977 the company was charged with antitrust violations by the same two box
manufacturers that sued International Paper.
Weyerhaeuser, which has 47,000 employees and annual sales of about $3 billion
is concerned about keeping its costs down in some areas. For instance,
employees participating in company-sponsored athletic programs have $9.75 a
month deducted from their pay.
=====
The Ten Largest Banks In the United States
Assets As Of
Bank City December 31,1976.
1. Bank of America San Francisco $73,912,940,000
2. Citicorp New York $64,281,504,000
3. Chase Manhattan Corp. New York $45,637,747,000
4. Manufacturers Hanover Corp. New York $31,482,813,000
S. J. P. Morgan and Company New York $28,765,510,000
6. Chemical New York Corp, New York $26,613,774 000
7. Bankers Trust Corp. ~ � New York $22,248,581:000
8. Continental Illinois Corp. Chicago $21,974,815,600
9. First Chicago Corp. Chicago $19,834,052,900
10. Western Bancorp Los Angeles $11,672,193,000
The reason banks are so important in a discussion of landholdings is that
banks loan money to big landholding corporations. Through mortgages, and
through the actual ownership of companies through trustholding devices, a
bank could actually control more land than even International Paper. But
that, land would be held secretly. Chase Manhattan Bank, a straggling third
to lead the, pack in bank assets, nonetheless has some 50,000 correspondent
banking offices in countries that literally dot the earth. The Chase and
other big banks, through mortgages, control much of the planet.
*At the time of publication, asset figures for the period ending December
31,1977 were not yet available.
=====
Number Three � Southern Pacific Company
This corporation (3,822,900 acres) sits atop landholdings that Ralph Nader
says "are now being held illegally." In-deed, the scandalous story of the
South-ern Pacific Company is not one its ex-ecutives would like made public.
To build a railroad in the mid-nineteenth century, the federal government
gave Southern Pacific hundreds of thousands of acres of land, but with this
proviso: "And all such lands, so granted by this section, which shall not be
sold or disposed of by said company within three years after the entire road
shall have been completed, shall be subject to settlement and preemption,
like other lands, at a price not exceeding one dollar and twenty-five cents
per acre, to be paid to said company."
The railroad was completed more than one hundred years ago. Yet Southern
Pacific is still holding onto much of the land it was legally bound to sell.
Some of the land has been sold, but at a price considerably higher than $1.25
an acre. And Southern Pacific sells the timber from the land. "We are making
more selling trees than we could ever make selling the land," said Kermit
Cuff, chief forester for the company.
Southern Pacific also leases land for oil and gas drilling. It leases land to
farmers. It leases areas for recreational development.
But much of the land held by Southern Pacific should legally not belong to
the company, as the Nader Study Group, headed by Robert C. FeUmeth, pointed
out: ."Land was not and has not been sold at $1.25 an acre within three years
after the railroad's completion, as required by law.
"Where common law analogy and the terms of major laws and grants allow, land
obtained fraudulently or used in violation of express conditions should eschea
t [revert] to the state. That is, the land should be forfeited or should
revert to federal or state government. Most of the land 'of the Southern
Pacific Company would have to escheat to the state."
But Southern Pacific had a friend in former California Governor Ronald
Reagan. As Ralph Nader pointed out, "The governor often appoints direct
representatives of the land interests to regulate or investigate their own
busi-nesses."
The landholdings of Southern Pacific are just part of the 200,000 square
miles of American land that were given to the railroads. Much of this
property constitutes the great landholding fortunes of today. Should those
200,000 square miles ever have been put into private hands? After all, what
was involved was private companies receiving handouts from a government which
had never held a plebiscite to determine whether the people wanted the land
to be given away.
How much is 200,000 square miles? It is the equivalent of Rhode Island (1,214
square miles), Delaware (2,057), Hawaii (6,450), New Jersey (7,836),
Massachusetts (8,257), New Hampshire (9,304), Vermont (9,609), Maryland
(10,577), West Virginia (24,181), South Carolina (31,055), Maine (33,215),
Indiana (36,291), and Kentucky (40,395).
Number Four � Burlington Northern, Inc.
This huge railroad (2,737,500 acres) has discovered that the "energy crisis"
makes it profitable to be in oil and coal as well. The company predicted it
was "going to make a hell of a lot of money out of coal," and perhaps to
insure this prediction, it filed a petition with the Interstate Commerce
Commission for a 15 percent increase in rail freight rates. The company also
constructed an oil refinery.
The Securities and Exchange Commission recently investigated Burlington
Northern to determine if the company was intentionally deferring railroad
track maintenance to prop up earnings. In other words, the company was being
investigated for taking chances with lives for the sake of maintaining high
profits.
The lack of maintenance of railroad tracks has become a nationwide concern.
In February 1978, two of the many trains that derailed (one in Florida and
one in Tennessee) released chemicals and gases that killed almost two dozen
people. There are some 11,000 train derailments each year in the United
States. In Illinois alone there are more than three each day.
Burlington Northern, like other giant landholders, has had its share of
problems with lawsuits. A federal grand jury recently indicted the company
for unlawful transport of dangerous chemicals.
. Like most of the twenty largest landholders, Burlington Northern is
incorporated in Delaware, a state that has an extremely low corporate tax
rate. However, it is headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota. Thus, it avoids
paying a greater share of tax money.
=====
What Can Happen To People When A Corporation Owns The Land They Live On
Lark, Utah is a town that 591 people used to call home. Of course, in a way,
as The New York Times of December 17, 1977 reported, it never really was
home; because the land Lark sits on, the stores the people shopped in, the
copper mine so many worked in, and most of the houses they lived in belong
entirely to a corporation � U.V. Industries. In 1972, U.V. decided to close
down its mine, and the town faltered economically But the corporation also
made an agreement with Kennecott Copper Corporation to take over the town
after about twenty years. Things began looking up for the people, in spite of
the mine's closing, and many found jobs elsewhere. They began to improve the
town, attract a few businesses, arid improve their homes. Many people moved
out, but others moved in, attracted by the low rents.
Then U.V Industries changed its mind and renegotiated the agreement with
Kennecott, which for about $2 million took over the town and asked the people
to move out, beginning August 31, 1978.
Kennecott did not comment on why it decided to close down the town, but
speculation runs from them wanting space for more dumps to just not wanting
to run a company town.
Some Lark residents did own their homes, though they leased the land from
the company. Who will buy a house in a closed-down town? Quite a number of
the townsfolk are elderly. They will have to be relocated by whatever agency
handles displaced persons.
Robert Praft, the general manager of Kennecott's Utah copper division, said,
"We have absolutely no intention of not doing right by the people of Lark."
gut how can the displacing of the entire town's population be seen as
anything less than a corporation's callous disregard for the lives of people?
=====
Number Five � Great Northern Nekoosa Corporation
Primarily a paper manufacturer and distributor (2,674,000 acres), Great
Northern Nekoosa also owns a coal company and a railroad. The corporation has
about two-and-a-half -times less acreage than International paper, but in
other respects the two companies are similar.
International Paper and Great Northern Nekoosa are two reasons why the cost
of newspapers, books, and magazines is going up. They continually raise the
price of newsprint, whether the market can bear it or not. Many small
independent publishers have gone out of business because of the skyrocketing
cost of newsprint-if they were lucky enough to be able to buy it at all. Many
small-newspaper owners have charged that the supply of newsprint is
intentionally kept low so the price can be kept high.
Number Six � Champion International Corporation
Champion International (2,400,000 acres) has long been a target of
environmentalists' concern over logging methods that harm the land. The
corporation has consistently denied all charges and says it sees no need for
a "healthy debate" on the issue, which is clear-cutting vs. selective cutting
of timber. Timber companies like to use clear-cutting methods, which level
everything, killing the wildlife that inhabits the forestland. Clear-cutting
also uncovers minerals which leak into the streams, poisoning the water. This
is because there are no tree roots to hold the minerals. Nothing can ever
grow on much of the land that has been subjected to clear-cutting, because
the topsoil is washed away by rain, and underneath the topsoil is nothing but
rot.
In 1974, the prestigious Sierra Club sued to challenge the sale by the
federal government to Champion International of the right to cut timber from
1,703 square miles of Alaska. A study by two ecologists hired by Champion said
that Champion International's use of the land "would destroy most of the
deer, bears, bald eagles, and other wildlife" in the area. Bald eagles are
already an endangered species,
Champion International was recently fined and placed on probation for price
fixing. In 1977, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to overturn Champion
International's conviction for conspiring to end competitive bidding on
certain U. S. timber sales. Also in
1977, Champion International U.S. Plywood Company unit and two of its
employees were charged with thirteen counts of misdemeanor in a criminal
complaint growing out of a fire that killed seven workers. And in 1977, the
Illinois Attorney General filed an antitrust suit against the company.
When the average citizen is convicted of a crime, he carries the stigma of
the ex-con for the rest of his life. Newspapers refer to him as an
"ex-felon," or "former convict." But corporations are not marked by those
names, even though almost every big company in the country at some time has be
en convicted of committing a crime, usually numerous crimes.
As Ferdinand Lundberg pointed out in The Rich and the Supe rRich, corporate
crime has its own lexicon. "Extravagant or insistent claims are called 'the
hard sell,' conspiracy in restraint of trade is 'a gentleman's agreement,'
price fixing is 'stabilizing the market,' monopolistic practices are
suggested as laudatory evidence of 'a hard competitor."'
A single corporate crime can cost the public more than all the bank robberies
in a year put together. Bank robbers take about $15 million a year. A single
dairy cooperative in New York, by watering milk, was found guilty of
defrauding people of hundreds of millions of dollars.
It is often the case that when a corporation is found guilty of a crime, no
one goes to jail. One example of corporate criminals not serving jail time
was the case that came to a federal court in Portland, Oregon in July 1970,
when Champion International was convicted of conspiring "since 1967 to rig
their bids before the auction" on a timber tract. No person from Champion
International went to jail. The fine was a wrist-slapping $50,000.
An investigation into price-fixing convictions of other big landholders
failed to disclose a single instance of company officers going to jail. These
officers might agree with Roger Blough of U.S. Steel, who said, "A price that
matches another price is a competitive price."
The fourteen landholding companies ranked right below the Big Six also have
histories that deserve scrutiny. For example, in 1974 Boise Cascade
(2,023,000 acres) was forced by an IRS review to refund $1.5 million to
customers for overcharges on paper products; the Federal Trade Commission
ordered the company to stop unfair pricing practices; and the corporation's
logging operations were found to have polluted waters in Northern Minnesota.
In 1976 Boise Cascade was charged by the Environmental Protection, Agency
with violations of the Clean Water Act in Washington State; the company was
also charged with operating without valid discharge permits and not complying
with installation of secondary water treatment systems. Boise Cascade was
forced to disclose, that between 1971 and 1976 it paid more than $300,000 in
gratuities and kickbacks, and a federal grand jury charged two Boise Cascade
officials with destroying documents sought by the government.
In March 1977, Boise Cascade paid $6.6 million to settle six lawsuits that
charged that the company "violated federal and state security laws and that
it breached certain warrantees in connection with the 1969 acquisition" of a
newsprint company.
Five of the lawsuits were brought by eleven West Coast newspapers that bought
newsprint from Boise Cascade.
Union Camp Corporation (1,556,000 acres) and Mead Corporation
(1,507,000 acres), both involved in the paper industry, were cited for
antitrust violations in 1977. Mead Corporation, with $1.6 billion in annual
sales in 1977, is a truly international company. Mead has subsidiaries in
France, Brazil, Leba-non, Canada, Switzerland, West Ger-many, the
Netherlands, Italy, Bermuda, Spain, Japan, Sweden, and Australia.
Perhaps the most interesting of the twenty largest landholders is Time,
Inc.
(Number Sixteen � 1,035,000 acres.) Most People think of Time, Inc. as the
publisher of Time magazine, but Time is small potatoes compared to the rest
of this corporation's empire, which also publishes Fortune, Money, People, and
Sports Illustrated. Time, Inc. is controlled by Rockefeller and Morgan
interests. But how did Time, Inc. come to own so much land? By acquisition of
other landholding companies.
Time, Inc. purchased the Washington (D. C. ) Star on February 3, 1978,
supposedly to remain competitive with Newsweek, which owns the Washington
Post (or is it vice versa?). Time, Inc. owns other newspapers besides the Star
. It owns Pioneer Press, a chain of thirty-one newspapers in Illinois. Time,
Inc. is a giant conglomerate that has been gobbling up companies for years.
It publishes books, produces records and films, has a mortgage company, a
wood products company, a cable TV company, an FM radio station, ten cable TV
stations, and three investment companies.
A Time, Inc. subsidiary, Temple-Eastex, Inc., owns 585,000 acres of choice
timberland in southeastern Texas. One reason for Time, Inc.'s success is that
it can buy newsprint from itself.
Another of the twenty largest landholders that deserves consideration is
International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation (Number Fourteen -1,130,000
acres), a company with too many subsidiaries to mention. Said the Wall Street
Journal: "The executive steps into his Avis rent-a-car, drives to his
broker's to check on his Hamilton Mutual fund shares, mails the quarterly
premium for his American Universal Life Insurance policy, checks on financing
some capital equipment through Kellogg Credit Corp., fires off a cable to
Britain, and then motors to Camp Kilmer, N.J. for a session with the
purchasing agent at the Federal Job Corps there. It's just a routine morning
dealing with a variety of matters, but so far the man's business has been
entirely with divisions or operations of the inappropriately named
International Telephone and Telegraph Corporation."
ITT does business in some fifty-five countries around the world. The
company is widely credited with being so powerful that it helped overthrow
the democratically elected regime of Salvador Allende in Chile. ITT
manufactures radios, owns insurance companies, loans money, and is even the
number-one bread salesman in the United States. The company, through its
subsidiary Wonder Bread, sells approximately one of every seven and a half
loaves marketed in America.
Procter and Gamble (Number Seventeen � 960,000 acres) is primarily thought of
as a household products company, but one of its subsidiaries is the mammoth
Folger Coffee Company. Procter and Gamble is an excellent example proving
that it is not always how much land that is owned, but where the land is
owned that counts. The company has yearly sales almost double those of
International Paper.
One member of the Big Twenty that should be singled out is Tenneco (Number
Nineteen�856,600 Acres), supposedly an oil company, but actually the largest
single farmer in America. Tenneco, a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Houston, Texas, was successful in getting its own man, Earl Butz, appointed
as Secretary of the Department of Agriculture under the Nixon Administration.
Butz was a director of J.I. Case (a Tenneco subsidiary) when he was appointed
to his Cabinet position. Small and family farmers are going out of business
at the rate of a thousand a week, while corporate farmers like Tenneco grow
larger and larger. Tenneco, incidentally, also owns the Newport News
Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Company, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, and
Packaging Corporation of America.
There are other big landholders deserving of mention that research could not
verify as being in the Top Twenty. Most of the churches in the United States
own land, but the Catholic Church is the largest property- holding church in
the country. And 'that fact raises an often-debated question: Should income
received by a religious organization through businesses and real estate be
taxed? At present, it is not. Yet, this gives such religious organizations an
enormous advantage over private businesses which do have to pay taxes.
The Mormon Church is another big landowner in the United States. Research
indicates that it is the largest landowner in Utah, and is among the three
largest landowners in Florida (a Du Pont estate and the estate of billionaire
John MacArthur also vie for the number-one position in Florida).
A possibly sinister collaboration has surfaced between billionaire families
and tax-exempt organizations. There have been reports of rich individuals
"giving" valuable properties to tax-exempt groups. In exchange for the
"gift," the tax-exempt group can lease the property back to the "giver" for,
say, a dollar a year for ninety-nine years. This way, the rich can avoid
property taxes (the land is "owned" by a tax-exempt group), and the
tax-exempt group can happily look forward to that day in the distant future
when it has full title to the land.
No report on land ownership would be complete without a mention of the great
ranches. There are several huge ones, including the Tejon Ranch in
California, the Parker Ranch in Hawaii, and the King Ranch in Texas. At
823,403 acres, the King Ranch alone is larger than the state of Rhode Island.
Yet, even this ranch does not make it into the Top Twenty.
The acquisition of land has always been synonymous with the growth of power,
and the size of landholdings a measure of that power. Today, the lack of "new
frontiers" has intensified the land-power competition, and we can see that
political, economic, and social power is going the way of our land � into
corporate hands. The people, whose interests ought to be represented by a
governmental hold on federal lands, are losing out to corporations that turn
the land into a source of immense profits at the expense of our health and
freedom.
The American people still hold about one-third of the land in the United
States, but we hold it by a thin thread. Our elected and appointed officials,
whose allegiances we must now question, seem to have a penchant for giving
away, through cheap oil leases and by the right of eminent domain, what
rightly belongs to us.
William Hofftnan has written sixteen books and numerous magazine articles. He
is best known for his analyses of government corruption, monopoly control,
and "created crises."
pps. 40-42; 110-115
-----
Aloha, He'Ping,
Om, Shalom, Salaam.
Em Hotep, Peace Be,
All My Relations.
Omnia Bona Bonis,
Adieu, Adios, Aloha.
Amen.
Roads End
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths,
misdirections
and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and
minor
effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said,
CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
<A HREF="http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
