3 ms·
Saves the state money in upkeep, with the tradeoff being that the private nonprofit can set its own rules on access.
by 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 agoI 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 agoWorth 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 agoYes, 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.