3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoFirst right of refusal I think is what you're looking for.
- radicalbyte 3y agoMy 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 agoLots 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 agoThe 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 agoAs I understand it, the terms of the donation cannot survive forever (although they can for a very long time).