3 ms·

That is the problem. Land owners don't pay property tax on land that they have placed a conservation easement on. https://www.landtrustalliance.org/topics/tax

by nsnick 7y ago

That is the problem. Land owners don't pay property tax on land that they have placed a conservation easement on. https://www.landtrustalliance.org/topics/taxes/income-tax-incentives-land-conservation https://www.landtrustalliance.org/topics/taxes/income-tax-in...

codingdave 7y ago
I'm OK with this - I would rather financially incentivize them to conserve their lands, instead of making them feel they need to monetize it to cover a tax bill.
- badfrog 7y ago
  I'd like it better if they were required to allow public access. The public is paying for this land in lost taxes, we should be able to use it.
  - oogali 7y ago
    I agree, however I think a balance needs to be struck between liability and groundskeeping, as those are currently the costs that all municipalities cover for their public parks. Something along the lines of retaining some or most of the tax benefits for the private owner, in exchange for the municipality covering grounds maintenance, and a split between both parties for the liability insurance. I think that’d be the start of the US developing its own “Freedom to Roam” implementation.
    - track_me_now 7y ago
      where do you live in the world? I ask because for the American/Canadian west the idea of "grounds maintenance" sounds pretty funny. These areas aren't uninhabited, but can be quite remote and raw.We're talking dirt track into the wilderness
- maxxxxx 7y ago
  So you end up with most of the land being a private park for the rich inaccessible for the rest.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- snidane 7y ago
  Think about what it means 'their land'. The people have agreed that they will protect his exclusive right to use that land. They gave him a set of rights associated with it. There are other people these days for which there was no land left - thus making a price congestion for the existing land. Shouldn't the current owner pay the tax as means of 1) congestion pricing and 2) service fee for others guaranteeing his rights? It feels to me like a fair tax as you pay for what you use.

by nsnick 7y ago

codingdave 7y ago

I'm OK with this - I would rather financially incentivize them to conserve their lands, instead of making them feel they need to monetize it to cover a tax bill.

badfrog 7y ago
I'd like it better if they were required to allow public access. The public is paying for this land in lost taxes, we should be able to use it.
- oogali 7y ago
  I agree, however I think a balance needs to be struck between liability and groundskeeping, as those are currently the costs that all municipalities cover for their public parks. Something along the lines of retaining some or most of the tax benefits for the private owner, in exchange for the municipality covering grounds maintenance, and a split between both parties for the liability insurance. I think that’d be the start of the US developing its own “Freedom to Roam” implementation.
  - track_me_now 7y ago
    where do you live in the world? I ask because for the American/Canadian west the idea of "grounds maintenance" sounds pretty funny. These areas aren't uninhabited, but can be quite remote and raw.We're talking dirt track into the wilderness
maxxxxx 7y ago
So you end up with most of the land being a private park for the rich inaccessible for the rest.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
snidane 7y ago
Think about what it means 'their land'. The people have agreed that they will protect his exclusive right to use that land. They gave him a set of rights associated with it. There are other people these days for which there was no land left - thus making a price congestion for the existing land. Shouldn't the current owner pay the tax as means of 1) congestion pricing and 2) service fee for others guaranteeing his rights? It feels to me like a fair tax as you pay for what you use.