3 ms·

> The conservancy, which operates 22 other preserves in California, and one in Oregon, plans to open the scenic property to the public for hiking, mountain biki

> The conservancy, which operates 22 other preserves in California, and one in Oregon, plans to open the scenic property to the public for hiking, mountain biking and horseback riding in the coming years for free, said Frazier Haney, executive director of the Wildlands Conservancy. > “The property is the size of — and has the grandeur of — many of California’s state parks,” Haney said. “It’s a wonder land of oak-filled valleys and magnificent flower-studded ridgelines.” So it’s effectively a new state park for outdoor enthusiasts to enjoy in Northern California. Very nice!

eitally 3y ago
Yep! California, more than any other state I know, has done an absolutely tremendous job of allowing private/public reinvestment in land trusts to create publicly accessible conserved open spaces. I should probably not be surprised by this, but I am still surprised at how much valuable land is held in these trusts. Take a peek: https://www.calandtrusts.org/map-ca-land-trusts/ https://www.calandtrusts.org/map-ca-land-trusts/
- ryantgtg 3y ago
  I was pretty happy when the Nature Conservancy assumed ownership of Bixby Ranch. Based on my trips to nearby Hollister, Bixby/Cojo is a gorgeous piece of land. Consistently threatened with development and without access. But now no more threats and potential access!
- thrdbndndn 3y ago
  The map seems only to show which administrative areas (counties) each trust involves? Is there a map showing how many areas they actually cover?
- fsckboy 3y ago
  > publicly accessible conserved open spaces I agree these places make nice "parks", but but they generally feel pretty not-wild to me, I'd prefer more inaccessible wilderness. In terms of philanthropy, the rich person donates the money to set the spaces aside, and the average Joe donates "I won't go in there".
  - ghaff 3y ago
    Hard to access wilderness is great and all that. It also doesn't work very well for people looking to spend half a day on the weekend. Sure I'll take remote parts of Yosemite over some park in the South Bay all other things being equal--but they're not. (And those parks near population get lots of use.)
    - ifhsblrocnBak 3y ago
      I think you and the previous poster may be missing that this land is (practically) contiguous with one of the most inaccessible and least travelled wilderness areas in California: the Ventana Wilderness. It’s amazing how few in the Bay realize that there is a stunning, brutally wild wilderness area that is a 2.5 hour drive from SF on a Friday after work.
skjksjgskjb 3y ago
[flagged]
fijiaarone 3y ago
[flagged]
- notyourwork 3y ago
  What about this makes it for political elites?
  - kortilla 3y ago
    By being for everyone, it naturally includes them too :)
  - iso1631 3y ago
    Many Americans have this fantasy about the communists owning the world and taking away their freedoms for the benefit of an elite few Those same people see no comparison to reality where the billionaires own the world and take away their freedoms for the benefit of an elite few
skybrian 3y ago
Garland Ranch is pretty nice too and will be closer for most people.

eitally 3y ago

Yep! California, more than any other state I know, has done an absolutely tremendous job of allowing private/public reinvestment in land trusts to create publicly accessible conserved open spaces. I should probably not be surprised by this, but I am still surprised at how much valuable land is held in these trusts. Take a peek: https://www.calandtrusts.org/map-ca-land-trusts/ https://www.calandtrusts.org/map-ca-land-trusts/

ryantgtg 3y ago
I was pretty happy when the Nature Conservancy assumed ownership of Bixby Ranch. Based on my trips to nearby Hollister, Bixby/Cojo is a gorgeous piece of land. Consistently threatened with development and without access. But now no more threats and potential access!
thrdbndndn 3y ago
The map seems only to show which administrative areas (counties) each trust involves? Is there a map showing how many areas they actually cover?
fsckboy 3y ago
> publicly accessible conserved open spaces I agree these places make nice "parks", but but they generally feel pretty not-wild to me, I'd prefer more inaccessible wilderness. In terms of philanthropy, the rich person donates the money to set the spaces aside, and the average Joe donates "I won't go in there".
- ghaff 3y ago
  Hard to access wilderness is great and all that. It also doesn't work very well for people looking to spend half a day on the weekend. Sure I'll take remote parts of Yosemite over some park in the South Bay all other things being equal--but they're not. (And those parks near population get lots of use.)
  - ifhsblrocnBak 3y ago
    I think you and the previous poster may be missing that this land is (practically) contiguous with one of the most inaccessible and least travelled wilderness areas in California: the Ventana Wilderness. It’s amazing how few in the Bay realize that there is a stunning, brutally wild wilderness area that is a 2.5 hour drive from SF on a Friday after work.

skjksjgskjb 3y ago

[flagged]

fijiaarone 3y ago

[flagged]

notyourwork 3y ago
What about this makes it for political elites?
- kortilla 3y ago
  By being for everyone, it naturally includes them too :)
- iso1631 3y ago
  Many Americans have this fantasy about the communists owning the world and taking away their freedoms for the benefit of an elite few Those same people see no comparison to reality where the billionaires own the world and take away their freedoms for the benefit of an elite few

skybrian 3y ago

Garland Ranch is pretty nice too and will be closer for most people.