Ft. Knox Claims Land "Mistakenly" Sold in 1970's

[Col Quisp]

Here's the link:<br><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK START--><a href="http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050811/NEWS0104/508110435/1008/NEWS01">www.courier-journal.com/a...008/NEWS01</a><!--EZCODE AUTOLINK END--><br><br>The US Army just now realized that 83 acres of its property was sold to a subdivision developer due to a surveyor's error in the 1970s. Now, the Army is trying to reclaim the land. Seems they need it for "tank exercises." Why now? Why didn't they realize it until NOW???? <br><br>The Army spokesperson says they "might" compensate the current occupants for their land. However, the decision is entirely up to the Secretary of the Army. <br><br>They say they found deer stands last year near the post's border, and decided to order a survey. The 83 acres was part of a larger plot the Army got through condemnation in the 1940's but they failed to lay out the boundary line of the tract. <br><br>The Army sent letters to the current occupants saying that the land belongs to the government, and said "therefore, the federal government is entitled to immediate and exclusive possession ofo the land." Hello? Ever hear of adverse posession????<br><br>The question is: why do they need this land for tank exercises all of a sudden?????? Scary.<br><br><br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[chiggerbit]

Ummm, Ft. Knox? As in...where? Why not exercises in, say, Arizona, Nevada, or Utah, somewhere with geography similar to Iraq or Afghanistan? Very weird. <p></p><i></i>

[Col Quisp]

Ft. Knox is in Kentucky. it's where the nation's gold is supposedly stored. <p></p><i></i>

[chiggerbit]

Yeah, lot's of sand and heat there, huh? <p></p><i></i>