5 ms·

> 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. Th

by 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).
reaperman 3y ago
If it's owned by a non-profit its generally exempt from taxation by statute.
gumby 3y ago
> 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. What a clever approach!
- dchftcs 3y ago
  It works until one of them stops caring. I could imagine that, if a town is dying, it would be very difficult for them to justify spending resources related to nature conservation, and would then again require the conservation foundation to step in and provide resources.
  - gumby 3y ago
    I think the point is that both have to stop caring for the land to be developed. A kind of two phase commit. Also helps in case one of them becomes defunct.
- iso1631 3y ago
  In the 1980s, to get around compulsory purchase orders able to take land from even the most determined charity, campaigners split up a field into a few thousand small parcels, sold on for a pound or two. The idea being that trying to get them all back would be unaffordable, even the most corrupt charity would be unable to sell the land. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice%27s_Meadow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice%27s_Meadow
  - gumby 3y ago
    Also sounds quite clever!
yellow_lead 3y ago
> 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. Is it possible to instead write something in the terms of the donation preventing this? Maybe that would require larger action from the state, like a state congressional vote though.
- kodah 3y ago
  First right of refusal I think is what you're looking for.
- radicalbyte 3y ago
  My football club in the UK has a lot of ground which is legally only allowed to be used for sporting purposes according to the will of the person who donated it. Not sure how it works but this is prime City-center land which remains green due to this.
- tedunangst 3y ago
  Lots of charitable trusts find themselves under new management who has a new interpretation on what the real intentions of the founder were. And then there's a lawsuit, and then a judge rules that this or that interpretation is in the public interest, regardless of what anybody wanted.
- cromulent 3y ago
  The Helsinki Foundation does this - in the constitution it states that the land use cannot be changed without permission from all donors, effectively giving each donor a veto right (and donations can be 1$).
- HWR_14 3y ago
  As I understand it, the terms of the donation cannot survive forever (although they can for a very long time).
Xen9 3y ago
In Finland, there's an organization literally named "The Forest Government" which takes responsibility for many forests / lands. I haven't dug deep and the organisation probably has ton of issues, like parasites attached to a host, but the general picture I got is that the public trusts it. --- Humans never evolved to coordinate as a society. Our natural course: the most psychopathic humans ruin the environment and the masses of "good" humans don't look / react because they don't have a sense of urgency. Philip K. Dick's story Project Earth tells about Project C (Earth being Project B), a species designed to solve this.
- Roark66 3y ago
  Similarily in Poland. We have an organisation called "State's Forests" and it has 24% of the entire surface of the country under it's management. (30% of the surface of Poland are forests). These are not "old growth" forests(such are only in national parks), but we'll managed commercial forestry. In general (despite the usual issues in organisations of this size) people are pretty happy with it. It is also because of the laws we have here that essentially give certain use rights to the public. For example, everyone has the right to collect mushrooms and or berries etc. Everyone can enter and use the forests for recreation (except when it's too dry due to fire risk). Also timber production and sales are pretty transparent (anyone can bid online). But as anything that matters to national economy/security it's under attack by various groups sponsored by shady money.

by ekidd 3y ago

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).

reaperman 3y ago

If it's owned by a non-profit its generally exempt from taxation by statute.

gumby 3y ago

dchftcs 3y ago
It works until one of them stops caring. I could imagine that, if a town is dying, it would be very difficult for them to justify spending resources related to nature conservation, and would then again require the conservation foundation to step in and provide resources.
- gumby 3y ago
  I think the point is that both have to stop caring for the land to be developed. A kind of two phase commit. Also helps in case one of them becomes defunct.
iso1631 3y ago
In the 1980s, to get around compulsory purchase orders able to take land from even the most determined charity, campaigners split up a field into a few thousand small parcels, sold on for a pound or two. The idea being that trying to get them all back would be unaffordable, even the most corrupt charity would be unable to sell the land. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice%27s_Meadow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice%27s_Meadow
- gumby 3y ago
  Also sounds quite clever!

yellow_lead 3y ago

> 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. Is it possible to instead write something in the terms of the donation preventing this? Maybe that would require larger action from the state, like a state congressional vote though.

kodah 3y ago
First right of refusal I think is what you're looking for.
radicalbyte 3y ago
My football club in the UK has a lot of ground which is legally only allowed to be used for sporting purposes according to the will of the person who donated it. Not sure how it works but this is prime City-center land which remains green due to this.
tedunangst 3y ago
Lots of charitable trusts find themselves under new management who has a new interpretation on what the real intentions of the founder were. And then there's a lawsuit, and then a judge rules that this or that interpretation is in the public interest, regardless of what anybody wanted.
cromulent 3y ago
The Helsinki Foundation does this - in the constitution it states that the land use cannot be changed without permission from all donors, effectively giving each donor a veto right (and donations can be 1$).
HWR_14 3y ago
As I understand it, the terms of the donation cannot survive forever (although they can for a very long time).

Xen9 3y ago

In Finland, there's an organization literally named "The Forest Government" which takes responsibility for many forests / lands. I haven't dug deep and the organisation probably has ton of issues, like parasites attached to a host, but the general picture I got is that the public trusts it. --- Humans never evolved to coordinate as a society. Our natural course: the most psychopathic humans ruin the environment and the masses of "good" humans don't look / react because they don't have a sense of urgency. Philip K. Dick's story Project Earth tells about Project C (Earth being Project B), a species designed to solve this.

Roark66 3y ago
Similarily in Poland. We have an organisation called "State's Forests" and it has 24% of the entire surface of the country under it's management. (30% of the surface of Poland are forests). These are not "old growth" forests(such are only in national parks), but we'll managed commercial forestry. In general (despite the usual issues in organisations of this size) people are pretty happy with it. It is also because of the laws we have here that essentially give certain use rights to the public. For example, everyone has the right to collect mushrooms and or berries etc. Everyone can enter and use the forests for recreation (except when it's too dry due to fire risk). Also timber production and sales are pretty transparent (anyone can bid online). But as anything that matters to national economy/security it's under attack by various groups sponsored by shady money.