Wanna get a way from it all?

[NeoConMan]

Another one we're still sharing an atmosphere with...

 

 

 

Land That Belonged to 'Unabomber' For Sale

By Phil Gast, CNN

December 5, 2010

 

(CNN) -- For 17 years, Ted Kaczynski meticulously prepared his instruments of death from a cabin on a remote

piece of property in western Montana.

 

The former math professor eschewed modern comforts, like electricity or water, in the small wooden building where

he made the mail bombs that would make him infamous. He also drew up an angry 35,000-word anti-technology manifesto.

 

The "Unabomber" killed three people and wounded 23 others in a string of attacks from 1978 to 1995.

 

The cabin is long gone, housed in the Newseum in Washington, D.C.

 

Kaczynski, 68, is long gone, too. He is serving a life sentence at a federal supermax prison in Colorado.

 

All that's left in Lincoln, Montana, are the notoriety for about 1,500 townspeople and the 1.4 acres

Kaczynski once owned a few miles south of town.

 

Now the property is for sale, recently reduced from $154,500 to $69,500.

 

"It's very secluded. Hardly any one goes up there," says John Pistelak, who runs a realty company in town and

is handling the sale. "I've had all kinds of calls."

 

The land is much quieter than it was in the weeks after the arrest as agents scoured it for clues into the

Unabomber's diabolic plans and anger.

 

A few bottles and the remains of a root cellar are still evident, according to Pistelak.

 

A real estate brochure reads, "Own a Piece of U.S. History: Home of the Unabomber."

It also touts the plot's proximity to wilderness areas and "great fishing and hunting."

 

 

Read real estate brochure;

 

http://www.northwest-national.com/18-1011.htm

 

 

Pistelak acknowledges the land normally would go for no more than $50,000.

 

But this wooded patch of land, which is being sold by a friend of his, is different, Pistelak says.

 

"With the history, it's got to be worth something," he said.

 

Wendy Gehring, who knew Kaczynski and was a neighbor, said she doesn't buy the man's reputation as a naturalist.

 

"I have nothing good to say about him," she told CNN Saturday, saying he looked down on her because she is a woman.

"The town doesn't really give a rat's *** about Ted Kaczynski."

 

Gehring and her husband, Clifford, operate a lumber business and saw mill.

Kaczynski complained about the noise and said it disturbed his peace, Gehring said.

 

For a while, the Unabomber lived a hermit's life, later emerging to ride his bicycle to town.

 

"We thought he was D.B. Cooper," said Gehring, referring to the famous hijacker who disappeared after

parachuting from a flight, likely over Washington state, in 1971.

 

Clifford Gehring identified Kaczynski when agents made the April 1996 arrest on the property.

 

It has not been inhabited since the arrest. A prospective buyer could run power on the property from a few

lots down, Pistelak told CNN Saturday.

 

Kaczynski quit a tenure-track position at the University of California-Berkeley in 1969 and, soon after,

he and a brother built the shack.

 

Federal agents gave the case the code name "Unabom" because universities and airlines were the early targets.

 

Along with the deaths and injuries he inflicted, Kaczynski threatened to blow up airplanes, and placed a bomb

on one flight in 1979, forcing the plane to make an emergency landing when a fire broke out in the cargo hold.

 

Agents closed in after his brother noted similarities between his old letters and journals and the bomber's manifesto.

 

Some areas on the property are surrounded by chain-link fences, vestiges of the federal investigation.

Interestingly, Pistelak says, there are no gates in the fences.

 

In 1999, Kaczynski told Time magazine he "would rather get the death penalty than spend the rest of my life in prison."

 

In an interview at the federal prison in Florence, Colorado, he also said he is sane.

 

"I don't get delusions and so on and so forth. I mean, I had very serious problems with social adjustment in

adolescence, and a lot of people would call this a sickness. But it would have to be distinguished between an

organic illness, like schizophrenia or something like that."

 

Kaczynski said he pleaded guilty in 1998 only to stop his lawyers from arguing that he was a paranoid

schizophrenic, as court-appointed psychiatrists had diagnosed.

 

Kaczynski wrote a book, "Truth Versus Lies."

 

In it, he said his brother's decision to turn him in was a way of settling a sibling rivalry.

His brother was jealous "over the fact that our parents valued me more highly."

 

In the Unabomber Manifesto, Kaczynski claimed a moral high ground for his bombing campaign, justifying the attacks

in the name of preserving humanity and nature from the relentless onslaught of technology and exploitation.

 

But in his journals, the government said, Kaczynski scoffed at environmental ideals.

 

The journals, found by FBI investigators in his Montana mountain cabin, revealed a cynical, apparently sexually

confused killer who delighted in his deadly explosions and cared little for the outside world.

 

"I believe in nothing," Kaczynski wrote. "I don't even believe in the cult of nature-worshipers or wilderness-worshipers.

(I am perfectly ready to litter in parts of the woods that are of no use to me -- I often throw cans in logged-over areas.)"

 

Of his killings, Kaczynski wrote: "My motive for doing what I am going to do is simply personal revenge."

 

The Unabomber got no sympathy from victims and their families.

 

Susan Mosser, who lost her husband in a Unabomber attack, urged the federal judge to "make the sentence bullet-proof,

or bomb-proof, lock him so far down that when he does die, he'll be closer to hell. That's where the devil belongs."

 

 

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/04/montana.unabomber.property/

[Jeff-7]

I don't care if it is "history" or not, I wouldn't want to own the former property of a sick psychopath like that. 50 grand for 1.4 acres of undeveloped land in Montana is a normal price?

[ChanMan]

[sparky scott 29]

Boy, what a deal...

Who could pass this up??

[tazzboy]

I would probably buy it and try in to save place for wildlife to roam freely.

[TommyK]

I find it a tad bit ludicrous that the real estate agent thinks the land deserves a premium because of it's 'history'. I mean really, if someone were really eager to buy the place because of the history, I'd be concerned for my family living in the area. Sell it for what it's worth, disclose the 'history' when showing the property, then let it go at that. But to ask a premium because a serial killer once built his mayhem there? Gimme a break.

 

Another thought. Who gets the money? If Kaczynski still owns it, the victims should get it.

 

One more thing Shouldn't it be spelled Unibomber?

[NeoConMan]

50 grand for 1.4 acres of undeveloped land in Montana is a normal price?

Land is CHEAP in the heartland Jeff.

 

Get into the mountains, usable land is harder to find.

Much of it is state-owned, especially Arizona and Nevada. BLM or parks stake out much more.

Indian reservations...

Mining and logging claims take up vast parcels, and despoil adjacent lands and their groundwater.

 

Find some land, especially further north, and it may be in a watershed or vulnerable to avalanche.

There may be no all-weather roads to it or even a passable road, and electricity might be miles away.

Developers buy up any huge swaths that might be trimmed from an old ranch.

 

Joe Sixpack has a hard time buying a couple of acres and putting a house and a cow on it.

That's why you'll see nice (pricey) homes bordered by 40 year-old trailer houses with plastic stapled to them.

Where land is cheap, there may be no jobs to be had in the area - gotta bring money in with you...

 

 

And yes, I would think there are only two possibilities in a righteous world.

Somebody could buy the land to get it off the market and clean it up - leaving it open to the neighbors.

Or they could fence it, build a house on it, and allow it to fade into a normal forgotten history.

[damian]

Good thoughts Neo....on the land parcel, and about land costs and availability....

 

My gal and I are considering moving to Colorado, getting some land....

 

I like the City life though....but I only go out when needed, so...

 

Ain't gonna buy that parcel though..too much 'past' to it....

 

Any thoughts on land purchaces for two retired folks ?..

 

Great but disabled ( might get us benifits and breaks ).

[grampa]

I find it a tad bit ludicrous that the real estate agent thinks the land deserves a premium because of it's 'history'. I mean really, if someone were really eager to buy the place because of the history, I'd be concerned for my family living in the area. Sell it for what it's worth, disclose the 'history' when showing the property, then let it go at that. But to ask a premium because a serial killer once built his mayhem there? Gimme a break.

 

Another thought. Who gets the money? If Kaczynski still owns it, the victims should get it.

 

One more thing Shouldn't it be spelled Unibomber?

 

Isn't buying property because of its association with a "celebrity" much like buying a "signatire" guitar? It's just a little over 1 acre in the forest except for the "celebrity" factor. You won't "be like Ted" if you buy it. And Unabomber with an "A" is right. It's how the federal referred to him.

[NeoConMan]

Yeah, it was the media who took the word to its eventual form.

The feds never intended for their original name on the case to be used for anything beyond internal business.

 

As far as ol' Kaczynski himself, if you could get him to come out and make appearances for a few bucks that might be different...

 

[TommyK]

Isn't buying property because of its association with a "celebrity" much like buying a "signatire" guitar? It's just a little over 1 acre in the forest except for the "celebrity" factor. You won't "be like Ted" if you buy it. And Unabomber with an "A" is right. It's how the federal referred to him.

 

That is part of my disgust. I would never ascribe the word 'celebrity' to this murder. I would no more buy a piece of land 'because' it was Ted's, than I would buy a gun 'because' it was once owned by John Dillinger. I would buy it because I wanted or needed it and the price was right. But, I'd have to decide whether the 'history' of the item bugged me enough to let it pass.

 

There are those with a macabre sense of 'celebrity' that would jump right on it. I'm just not sure I'd want to live next to them, nor endure the traffic of those who find this type of thing exhilarating if it is turned into a tourist destination.

[Thundergod]

I'm with TommyK... if I lived close to the place, I'd be very suspicious of whoever paid premium for such a collectible.

[Jeff-7]

Land is CHEAP in the heartland Jeff.

 

Get into the mountains, usable land is harder to find.

 

Very true I didn't think about that very much, heck I think we're up to 2 grand an acre for farmland and timber nowadays.

[rocketman]

Another thought. Who gets the money? If Kaczynski still owns it, the victims should get it.

 

Good point! It depends on whether or not the victims sued or not, I guess. It's probaby not worth the lawyer fees though...

[jnastynebr]

Colin Cowherd brought this up on his ESPN radio show this morning. No Cabin is the deal breaker for me.

[NeoConMan]

Another thought. Who gets the money?

I've pondered this before, trying to gather consensus.

 

Say Ted writes a book and it sells huge.

Sells rights to the story and it's a box office smash clearing $100 million.

We ALL know he's not gonna pocket a dime of that - the courts would never allow it.

 

So, what's his motivation?

Another stick in the eye for the public he hates?

 

What if he agreed to allow a certain number of people share in any profits?

Any victims or their immediate families ONLY - allow a court to ratify a decision giving each group a certain percentage.

Including any share Ted may have retained.

What's the harm in that?

 

I'm not talking about movie studios, Hollywood agents, huge tax burdens that fatten the IRS.

Ted signs off, the families are compensated handsomely, and they can do whatever they want with the proceeds.

Refuse it, keep it, blow it, trusts, charities, whatever....

 

 

Something tells me that God (or somebody) would smile down upon earth and see that it was good.

[damian]

I've pondered this before, trying to gather consensus.

 

Say Ted writes a book and it sells huge.

Sells rights to the story and it's a box office smash clearing $100 million.

We ALL know he's not gonna pocket a dime of that - the courts would never allow it.

 

So, what's his motivation?

Another stick in the eye for the public he hates?

 

What if he agreed to allow a certain number of people share in any profits?

Any victims or their immediate families ONLY - allow a court to ratify a decision giving each group a certain percentage.

Including any share Ted may have retained.

What's the harm in that?

 

I'm not talking about movie studios, Hollywood agents, huge tax burdens that fatten the IRS.

Ted signs off, the families are compensated handsomely, and they can do whatever they want with the proceeds.

Refuse it, keep it, blow it, trusts, charities, whatever....

 

 

Something tells me that God (or somebody) would smile down upon earth and see that it was good.

I'm not sure of God smiling at down at anything...A movie will be made, and maybe should be made. Whether it's good or not depends upon too many factors. If it doesn't star Nick Cage, thats a good start. Let him write what he wants. Not many will buy it, and it wasn't until the papers published his manifesto that he was caught. Heck, Manson had a cell phone for a while (more bars in more places), let him write. Wiki Leaks is doing more damage to the country than a Charles Manson book on 'Family Values' or a Ted book on 'Explosives Safety', so, whatever regarding that...As far as bad movies go, my gal brings home new blue ray films that should be a crime to have been made or sold..

 

Compensation for victims of crime; In general I'm all for what works legally.....I'm suing for compensation, and I'm going to win...

Thats my two cents for the consensus....I like good and bad people....I will not tolerate bad behavior from good or bad people done with malicious intent...ever.

[TommyK]

I've thought about that too NeoConMan. I think the law says a criminal cannot profit from his crime. It is usually applied to book writing and movie deals. i.e. anything that would go to the criminal, would go to the victims. Having said that, I think selling the property at a premium due to the notoriety of his crime, would fall under that law. At least the difference between what it would sell for had it not had the notoriety.

[grampa]

The brochure says Kaczynski once owned it. I gather that means someone else is taking a loss on the sale.

[NeoConMan]

I gather that means someone else is taking a loss on the sale.

Yeah, or maybe just a loss on their speculative profits.

 

Curious to know what the process is.

The government probably never "owned" it, but simply issued a restraining order until the case was closed.

Once Kaczynski was off the deed, I wonder who jumped into the breech so eagerly?

Was it auctioned at the court house steps?

I've bought commercial property that way - aircraft hangar, etc.

 

Public record I'm sure, if anybody cared to peruse the County Clerk's office there in Montana.

[grampa]

Yeah, or maybe just a loss on their speculative profits.

 

Curious to know what the process is.

The government probably never "owned" it, but simply issued a restraining order until the case was closed.

Once Kaczynski was off the deed, I wonder who jumped into the breech so eagerly?

Was it auctioned at the court house steps?

I've bought commercial property that way - aircraft hangar, etc.

 

Public record I'm sure, if anybody cared to peruse the County Clerk's office there in Montana.

 

 

Yeah, it's probably on record but who cares? I vaguely remember a story about the sale but whoever bought it then desreves the loss now. I knew some of the Fed investigators in the case and one of them only half-jokingly said he would live to get the cabin and move it to some other wilderness area. He is kinda like Neo, he prefers to live with some distance between him and "civilization".

[NeoConMan]

I like that you used the quotes on "civilization" just like I would.

 

I have to interact in "civilization" almost daily, with people who are less and less civilized with each passing day.

Without getting too philosophical I can say that my closest interactions with the public, and elected officials,

demonstrates over and over again what happens to the human race or the animal kingdom when too many occupy one space.

 

Police, investigators, and the like get the highest daily doses.

 

Having lived rural for much of my young life, then being near the largest cities in the nation for twenty years, I know my preference.

I like the convenience of water, electricity and natural gas.

I like being able to drive to a grocery store within a reasonable distance.

I like choosing who I talk to, work with, or live near.

I like conducting my business without the need for security cameras or traffic signals.

 

I don't like living in (or spending much time in) a beehive.

The people who do?

They are too often dependent on it.

Kindness of strangers, target-rich environment, opportunities at every turn, etc....

They don't live in the city for any good reason, and they cannot survive in a very small town or rural area.

I don't need those people around me, and I make it very clear when they solicit my graces...

[TommyK]

I think one of my signature lines is apropos. I'll boldify it:

 

"The closer you get to civilization, the less civilized humans become" --- me again.

[Gilliangirl]

I'd buy it, regardless of who owned it beforehand, if it was a good deal. Just go in there, clear out any reminders of old Ted and make it your own. Who cares what it used to be. Land is land. I HATE living in the city and can hardly wait to get back out to the country.