Land Trusts Attempt Stealth Tax Cut

American Land Rights Association ^ | Monday, February 17, 2003 9:59 PM | American Land Rights Association

[HairOfTheDog]

Show me a map of the areas that are currently owned by the government, and tell me how much of it is really owned by default because it had no one claim it originally.

As for other lands purchased later by the gov't for preservation or other uses.... I am sure some decisions I could defend, and some I wouldn't. But I do not have a knee-jerk reaction to the idea of land trusts or public lands.

[HairOfTheDog]

Believe me, I know that. I see the garbage and dog feces they leave behind near the public lands.

Shame on them... but do people leave less garbage in strip mall parking lots? - what is your point? - That there is an impact to letting people in? Yes, I know that.

[HairOfTheDog]

What about water rights?

Second, it is not limited to land trusts but also to: "a governmental unit, or an agency or a department thereof".

Well, isn't it silly for the gov't to write checks to itself?

[B Knotts]

My point is this: turning the whole country into a national park isn't necessarily a good idea. Also: the same hikers who gripe about multiple-use often are among the worst offenders when it comes to keeping lands healthy and litter-free.

[Henrietta]

I don't see why this is a big deal. You can already donate appreciated property to a charity and take a tax deduction for the FMV amount (as opposed to your tax basis).

[hattend]

Here's one source of data. And if the picture still comes up as a red x, here is a link to the table

http://www.nwi.org/Maps/LandChart.html

It's as of 1995 so it's probably out of date on the low side.

[Teacher317]

"some places set aside"? The federal government owns more than 80% of several western states, and about a third of the entire nation's lands. They can let go of an area the size of Alaska and still be able to provide ample wilderness, parkland, and natural resources. Instead, they are changing the rules to make it easier to go after even more. That's a red-flag as far as I'm concerned.

[Carry_Okie]

If anything, these organizations need their tax exempt status revoked and their boards of directors thrown in jail for racketeering, tax-evasion, fraud, and manipulation.

[HairOfTheDog]

Turning the whole country into a national park would not be a good idea. But that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about setting aside some places. All public lands are not national parks. The lands I ride and camp in are state forest lands. Working timber lands.

And whenever more than two people are in the same space they will bicker about something or another. So we bicker and work out how to use the woods. Believe me, public access is a vital part of my approval of public ownership of land. I will not support one without the other. But I also know that carries with it the responsibility of being a good steward. I belong to a backcountry horseman group that volunteers clearing and maintaining trails, and I pick up my own garbage and anyone elses I find. Giving access to the public carries with it that some will be careless. I will not let them spoil it for me if I can help it.

[HairOfTheDog]

The public lands in Alaska, Arizona, the Cascades and the Rockies are by and large lands that no one homesteaded, no one bought, and are thus "publically owned". There was not a huge land grab, these are lands that no one wanted then. Huge areas of Alaska and Arizona, and the tops of mountains are unlivable areas no one is fighting over. The fight is over the ten acre plot on the outskirts of town and what to do with that. Not the huge expanses of desert or perma-snow.

I wanted to see the map so that you can see this for yourself.

[Carry_Okie]

Don't flame me if you want me to buy into this. Anyone who wants to explain why land trusts are inherently bad, or why their shouldn't be a tax break for leaving lands undeveloped, I would love to listen.

Then read the books on the topic:

Undue Influence, by Ron Arnold. This book explains how the activities of these land trusts constitute criminal racketeering.

Natural Process, by me. This book explains why the movement is morally wrong, environmenally bankrupt, and how an alternative system based upon Constitutional principles would work better for BOTH man and nature.

[HairOfTheDog]

In other words.... it is quality, not sheer quantity, of environment set aside. Looking at the fact that the government, by default owns huges expanses of desert and the tops of mountains and calling it enough because it is a big square on a map does little to protect any quality of life for people or animal habitat. Some lands that are actually of 'value' need to be set aside too.... and that is where the people want to be also. This is where we need to find a balance. Neither extreme is right, but the right answer is between them somewhere.

[HairOfTheDog]

Undue influence would be wrong.... And I have heard a story or two where that took place.

Can you tell me in some paragraphs from your book or otherwise why you think 'the movement' is morally wrong? (and perhaps define 'the movement' - there are a lot of movements)

[Teacher317]

but the right answer is between them somewhere

Well, I would guess that most would argue that 33% is more than enough... should government control 33% of the economy, too?... and making it easier for them to get more is moving farther away from that proper middle position, not getting closer to it.

[HairOfTheDog]

Well, I would guess that most would argue that 33% is more than enough... should government control 33% of the economy, too?...

That is a silly response.

Giving a tax break to sellers who sell lands for the purpose of preservation is not government tyranny yet, imho.

[Carry_Okie]

Can you tell me in some paragraphs from your book or otherwise why you think 'the movement' is morally wrong? (and perhaps define 'the movement' - there are a lot of movements)

I'm extremely pressed for time today preparing a presentation for the Western Land Use Conference in Klamath Falls this weekend. Perhaps you could read the first chapter instead. The gist of what is wrong about it is there. Suffice it to say that government protection destroys the opportunity for the market to do a better job of the same thing. I would add that TNC's stewardship isn't what it's cracked up to be either.

[HairOfTheDog]

I have been perusing your website, and I am interested, so thanks.

[B. A. Conservative]

The Nature Conservancy are basically fronts for socialistic programs designed to grow and empower government. They have nothing to do with actually protecting or enhancing the environment. I live within spitting distance of several of the properties that they have bought and turned over to government. Everyone of these particular properties has suffered gross mismanagement and devaluation of the surrounding private properties. And everyone of these properties are in very desirable locales where private interests have improved and enhanced the value of their own properties. The organizations degrade the environment at taxpayer expense.

If you are considering contributing money, property or dealing with these people, I suggest you reconsider and look at what they have done in other places.

Most so-called environmental groups are actually anti-capitalistic and are only interested in enhancing government and other socialistic ventures. The people who control these organizations don't care about improving the environment.

[HairOfTheDog]

I want to understand you, but none of that makes any sense. Tell me that they think people are bad and tree frogs are good, and I can follow you and debate whether we need to give up land to tree frogs. But "fronts for socialistic programs designed to grow and empower government" and "degrade the environment at taxpayer expense" and "are only interested in enhancing government and other socialistic ventures" sounds like crazy talk to me.

How did they "suffer gross mismanagement and devaluation of the surrounding private properties"?

[HairOfTheDog]

This book is not about pristine, undisturbed lands. If such a thing exists, there are so few left in the continental U.S. that are not already protected, that there is no point in writing yet another book about "preserving nature." This book is about motivating people to profit from the study, restoration, and development of healthy, productive ecosystems on the other 95% of the land.

I read your first chapter, and I need to read it again because I fear much of it went over my head. I am a smart person, but you understand, I hope, that your discussion presupposes an expertise in both environmental science, and the workings of the existing bureaucracy. I only know a little about either. I do appreciate the example you laid out.... and that kind of environmentalism is exactly what I am against... I would never support regulating a rancher to a slow death. I live in timber country, and I don't see logging as an environmental disaster. The logging process should be part of the view we need to expect, not just the pretty trees.

I guess I wish there were more vocal conservatives on these threads who are interested in conservation without silliness. All of us here can find silliness in overpasses built for squirrels and set asides for frogs of a particular hue. But my response to that is not to come out on these threads and proclaim my right to not give a crap about conservation either, because I do. I deeply care about the existance of wild lands. They don't have to look like the original wild lands or remain untouched, but they can be useful forests where the adaptable ecosystems thrive over time. Not all will, whether we try or not.

Here in Western Washington, the wild lands mean timber, and timber has value, so much of our conservation is done by private tree farmers. I respect them. Some of our forest lands are publically owned, and I fail to see the evil of that. They are logging portions of it at any given time, and I enjoy watching the stages of growth that happen when it is replanted as my trails meander through them over the years. Now, they are having a bad budget year, and are closing some of my trail-heads, but I have no trail heads on private lands. The private farmers don't have the same duty to open their lands up to me. I think the public lands do have that duty, and I am not pleased.

All of this is a little off-topic, but it hopefully explains a little where I am starting out at. So if you have time, How do you arrive at this balance you speak of in your quote above?