6 ms·

Wait so California state granted $24 million to the private Wildlands Conservancy, who spent $35 million for the property. California should have just bought th

• yding 3y ago
  Saves the state money in upkeep, with the tradeoff being that the private nonprofit can set its own rules on access.
  • freetime2 3y ago
    I wonder if the $24M that the state contributed came with any stipulations ensuring public access to the land. It sounds like they intend to open it to the public anyway, but for that amount of money I assume there must be some binding legal agreements as well.
    • hackernewds 3y ago
      Worth the free goodwill. It's kinda like how Airbnb shows us the total with fees with all the jazz of an unveil, just before Biden passed a law requiring
    • eitally 3y ago
      Yes, of course. Take a look at the Wildlands Conservancy's website to learn more. In my previous comment on this thread I also linked to this reference: https://www.calandtrusts.org/map-ca-land-trusts/ https://www.calandtrusts.org/map-ca-land-trusts/ These sorts of public/private land trusts are by far the most popular way in California of ensuring wildlands are not developed and remain open for public access. It makes sense for the state to contribute to them, too, because they provide QoS guarantees - and financing largely supported through philanthropy - the state would never be able to ensure.
• kylehotchkiss 3y ago
  The article said that two former California governors threatened to sell public land to balance budgets so the private ownership seems to be a mitigation. Plus they can implement private security if needed, something that public land/parks occasionally are lacking.
  • ekidd 3y ago
    > The article said that two former California governors threatened to sell public land to balance budgets so the private ownership seems to be a mitigation. This is a well-known concern in land preservation. There's apparently an offshore island near Maine that's too small and too far out to be of much use to humans, but it's an important migratory bird resting point. IIRC, it was donated to the state once by conservationists (long ago), sold by the state, and then repurchased and preserved by a non-profit foundation. The state won't be getting it again! The usual approach in the US is for the land conservation foundations to split up the ownership rights between two different local organizations in a way that prevents developing the land without agreement from both organizations. As a general rule, most towns are happy with this setup. It provides them with public walking trails, and possibly areas for other outdoor sports. Many towns choose not to tax these lands, within reason.
    • civilitty 3y ago
      It's a fundamental problem with almost anything to do with the state (in the general sense), including budgets. Anything that is discretionary will eventually be raided by an opportunistic politician and binding future policy makers is very difficult, if not downright impossible. As long as the general rule of law is strong with robust property rights, however, creating a new private organization like a trust with a strict charter that limits its future stakeholders is a lot easier.
      • pradn 3y ago
        It's not just the state. All human institutions can change. I hope these nonprofit land conservancies can continue their mission forever, but it's not guaranteed. Hell, look at monasteries. Several societies with large religious followings couldn't prevent the dissolution of monasteries - Tang Dynasty China (cutting down Buddhist ones), and Tudor England (cutting down Christian monasteries).
• tomr75 3y ago
  then they have to manage the property as well