Posted on 02/18/2003 9:57:26 AM PST by countrydummy
Not any more. No matter what laws the legislature writes the bureaucracy can ignore re reinterpret them at will. Fro reasons I cannot even explain or recall, I started looking at real estate transactions in my County. Being an engineer trained in economic theory and raised by father who was a bond consultant, I looked at the transaction history as if it were an electronic signal. I then started looking at timber prices over the same period. What I saw shocked me. Government policy had created most of the problems it was supposedly dedicated to fix, whether by tax law, subsidy, or regulation. It wasn't until I interviewed a man who (at the time unbeknownst to me) was one of the principal players in this real estate scam that I gained confirmation on what was really going on. I related my observations and theories to him and asked whether it was even possible that politicians were smart enough to pull off such a manipulative scam. He confirmed two things: first, that the politicians aren't that smart; and second, that there are other people who USE politicians who are. He then added that I might be more careful or I could get hurt.
In short, the pattern of land price manipulation I had seen was corrupt and for profit, to say nothing of the environmental damage the policy was doing to our forests.
At this point, I would ask that if you want to know more and be fair to me and my kids for my time, you should buy the book and read it. What you found difficult to read isn't so because of the language, but because its perspective is so alien to you after a lifetime of media manipulation by the beneficiaries of this mess. Take it from one who has been there, it's deeper than you think.
One of the problem with land trusts is that the land often ends up in the hands of government anyway. The trusts don't want to pay the property taxes any more than we do. As the land goes back to government and is taken off the tax rolls, the cost to the remaining private landowners rises.
The Nature Conservancy often sells to the Federal government at a profit. That means the end result is little different from them buying it or government.
I got to hear the spokesperson for the Natural Land Trust speak a few weeks ago. Their intent is to leverage whatever grants (from government) they can get into land purchases, so the land can be made roadless. We need large tracts (>50,000 acres) here in the east so the cougars and wolves roam free again. I'm not making this up - this organization is conciously working to implement Dave Foremans Wildlands Project here in Pennsylvania.
Land doesn't take care of itself. If there is anything we should have learned by the condition of National Forests and National Parks it is that.
Taking care of the natural beauty and productivity of a natural asset is a perfectly good business because it provides the productive foundation for all economic activity. The key is a just and efficient pricing system. I have devised that.
When government assumes that role, it drives the value of that service to zero. What you get is an armed monopolist capable of controlling all property. The power to control then becomes power for sale. That's the tyranny they were talking about.
Thus the real questions regarding who fills that role are:
In the last couple of years, there was a case locally where a landowner had an agreement to sell to a developer. The developer was fairly well known locally, and was a member of the Board of Directors of the local watershed group - Clearwater Conservancy. People who were accustomed to having undeveloped lands behind them were upset, so Clearwater Conservancy came to their rescue. If the community came up with funds, Clearwater would apply for grants to help buy the land and protect it.
As it shook out, the developer (a member of the Clearwater Board) generously agreed to sell the least developable half of the land to Clearwater, for almost the same price he was buying the ENTIRE PROPERTY from the original owner for.
There was a public fundraising effort, where they got about $20,000 in actual donations from private citiziens, and about $80,000 in grants from local governments. Clearwater secured $660,000 in state and federal grants to buy the half from a member of their board. He personally profited immensely from all the tax dollars (federal, state, and local) to pay him to NOT develop the land next to the trailer park, and only develop the land next to the high-priced houses on the other end.
What happened to the land? Clearwater didn't want to hold it. It was given to the Township, where it will be used as a park, maintained with our tax dollars.
From what I've been reading about these "environmental" groups lately, our experience locally is the norm, not the exception. The tax-payers locally would NEVER have voted to spend $760,000 on land next to the trailer park. If the tax-payers had known that the money would come from taxes, they would have objected, but they didn't know. All the discussion was about "grants, matching funds, sources of funding".
If people truly supported this land being in the hands of government, they would certainly agree to government funding for purchase of land for preservation. The only ones that pass are for very low amounts - the environmentalists put out all the press reports about the support these measures have, then inside government complain bitterly that there's little they can do with the paltry sum they've been given.
It's that last little word that raises all the problems. Our Founders were wise enough to try to design a government that would run as few risks of potential abuse as possible. Why abandon that wisdom, just because it might take a while before the truly abusive problems begin?
Well then the entire argument is gone. Where's the fun in that? ;^)
You asked for a map, will here is a link. http://www.defenders.org/publiclands/images/landsmap.jpg
You should. Here is an excellent example of what land trusts do. Water rights fight--farmer regrets selling to an open space trust Check out the posts by Carry_Okie. Then check out his book.
Negotiating agreements to manage areas without holding title to them, through partnerships or conservation easements
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.