3 ms·
In our current system, yes, but should we not reach higher to say that this land is common land and that it is a resource not just for us but for all generation
by branchless 10y ago
In our current system, yes, but should we not reach higher to say that this land is common land and that it is a resource not just for us but for all generations going forward.
When we say that all land is for sale and once owned is at the disposal of the owner in perpetuity, we rely on the good-will of the owner. In the majority of cases this is not enough.
We need to look at land ownership differently if we want to achieve real change. We have to bake in behaviour into the rules of our society. Right now we bake in land speculation and exploitation of natural resources for private good and often the public purse picks up the pollution costs later.
- jonlucc 10y agoI think it's worse than that. This particular person is in a position to likely make enough money to not need to worry about the cost of management of this land. What if his kids aren't as rich or don't care as much about nature? What if he has 6 kids and they split the land equally; will 5 generations down the line still feel attached to their distant relatives to be able to hold the land together?
- maxerickson 10y agoThe conservation easement is likely to be durable. So the protection should survive sales and such. This donation, earmarked as a "conservation easement" (which typically require landowners to forfeit the right to develop, subdivide, or otherwise interfere with the preservation of a natural landscape),
- branchless 10y agoYes this is my point. He snuffs it and his kids decide they want to turn it over to something highly non-environmental. Which is why we should not have any form of hereditary hand-me-down, including power and land, at best you are expecting benevolence which isn't even fair, why do they get to inherit such power.