I'm always curious about the model fans of this approach are using. What is the "correct" amount of conserved land? Given that the government essentially neve

I'm always curious about the model fans of this approach are using. What is the "correct" amount of conserved land? Given that the government essentially never reverses these kinds of easements or grants, you have to be extremely confident of future possible uses of the land to say that deeding it in perpetuity is a good idea. The HN crowd tends to realize that a policy of "never build anything ever again" is a bad idea in SF, but is a great idea as long as the area in question is mostly trees not in their backyard.