Land Trusts Attempt Stealth Tax Cut

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

[razorback-bert]

A conservation easement is designed to exclude certain activities on private land


conservation easements, agricultural easements basically limit or prohibit the land from being developed for residential or industrial purposes regardless of who owns the land in the future.

Since the monitoring and maintenance of easements requires personnel inputs in perpetuity, easement donors often are required to provide financial support for the easement if it is held by a nonprofit organization.

The easement can restrict or permit certain public uses of the land. An easement does not have to permit public access at all.

http://ohioline.osu.edu/cd-fact/1261.html

[freeper12]

>>Republican "adults" will protect your rights.

Surely you gest?

[knuthom]

The trails I ride in are all public lands. People hunt, hike and camp in public lands.

If the Nature Conservancy owns it you will not be able to ride, hunt, or camp there.

[HairOfTheDog]

A conservation easement is designed to exclude certain activities on private land

Yes, I know this. That is the point. It is also voluntary.

[HairOfTheDog]

If the Nature Conservancy owns it you will not be able to ride, hunt, or camp there.

As is their right, if they keep it in private hands. We have had a mixing of issues on this thread.

I don't believe it is wrong for government to own land. If there is a public interest in the land, then the public can buy it. What I will fight is the closing of public land access. And public access is at risk here, not because of enviro-nuts, but because of mobile meth labs.

Private timber lands and NC reserves have no such responsibility to allow access, but I believe public lands do. If everybody who argues against public lands here won, there would be no riding, hunting, hiking and camping "right" anywhere but property I own, which doesn't sound very free to me.

[knuthom]

LAND GRABBING SECRETS OF THE NATURE CONSERVANCY

UNDUE INFLUENCE: The Nature Conservancy

[Mamzelle]

A land trust would not be state land. There is a certain flexibility with land trusts.

[razorback-bert]

It is also voluntary

LOL, see post #66, I have some land almost surrounded by timber company land with a TNC conservation easement, the TNC keeps suggesting I let it go for taxes, because I can never really do anything with it. A neighbor in the area bit on TNC's do-gooder bs and now his children find out they can't build a weekend cabin by their lake.

but I believe public lands do.

You haven't been paying attention to the roadless and wilderness plans of the do-gooders then. Some tried to control access by the Ute indians to their own land, by destroying roads on public lands that join with the Utes' roads. Nevermind that the Utes had a treaty easement for access to the land, the do-gooders actually argued that it for horses not cars.

[HairOfTheDog]

What, you are now a victim of the TNC suggesting things and your neighbor is a victim because he agreed to something he didn't want?

I am not saying abuse isn't possible, abuse and mismanagement is possible whenever and where ever people are involved that want to do anything. So we need to be smart now, and always.

I don't like the movement toward roadless and wilderness plans. I would argue against it. I am aware of the crazy ideas out there, that is why we need thinking people, not just equal and opposite reactions to whatever the stimulus is from the crazies.

If conservatives could articulate smart plans that anyone could understand toward environmental protection, we could drive the issue in the right direction, instead of just 'reacting' all the time. But we aren't there.

[Mamzelle]

If the vehicle didn't specify a cabin by their lake, then the heirs could not build one. Sounds like bad lawyering. I'll take a dimmer view of TNC, however. Sounds like some cheesy otherwise-unemployables with Messiah complexes. Dangerous birds.

The whole non-profit world is rife with abuse. You can start a charity with your name on it and collect donations which another person can deduct from their income. Very little regulation, and there are thousands of "vanity charities" springing up. Drives down the whole notion of sacrificial giving to those in need. I know of one that pays for millionaires' grand adventure vacations, passing these entertainments off as "scientific expiditions."

But the concept of land trusts deserves a little exploration. If you have a piece of land that you don't want to leave to your heirs, but would like it to be a private park for your heirs, a land trust is the way to go. You can even designate certain areas for certain purposes (like trails, and yes, cabins). If you have a ranch which you can't afford to run, a land trust may help you hang onto it.

It is right to be suspicious of most "enviromentalists" though they've started to call themselves "conservationists." Mostly they just want everyone off the planet (or crammed into cities). Anti-human.

[ridesthemiles]

Research various articles in Range Magazine out of Carson City, Nevada. The Nature Conservancy sells a great notion with the idea of preserving the land for future generations, but they have sold such holdings for development in the past, and I am confident they will again in the future. An annual subscription to Range is $20 for quarterly issues. Worth the money. They also have a web site...www.rangemagazine.com.

[razorback-bert]

What, you are now a victim of the TNC suggesting things and your neighbor is a victim because he agreed to something he didn't want?

NO, I am not a victim of TNC, but my neighbor in his 80's and barely able to read and write all his life was. His daughter, who was a liberal supporter of TNC and trusted them, is the one who went ballistic, when she found what they really did. The daughter had been after me to join with the TNC and save the area for our grandchildren's enjoyment.

Deals like hers are not isolated one time incidents by a few misinformed chapters, so she informed me. Did you note in my post on conservation easements that easement donors often are required to provide financial support for the easement if it is held by a nonprofit organization. The daughter found out this meant she would be paying both sides of a legal suit. There are other clauses in the easement such as the present four bedroom house on the property can only be occupied by two (2) people and all improvements to the house must be approved by the TNC.

The TNC's and other NOP's slick ads and words do not match their practices in reality.

[razorback-bert]

Sounds like bad lawyering.

Nope, it was good lawyering by the TNC on their part, they got exactly what they wanted.

See my post #72 for the rest of the story.

[Mamzelle]

I meant whoever lost their rights was poorly represented. Perhaps your acquaintance has a cause of action if a naive man was manipulated into signing some boilerplate. Property law is not like tort law, but is based on ancient tradition and some suprising common sense. This might be the route to pursue.

[HairOfTheDog]

What I really think is this. The Nature Conservancy has a mission that is obvious. I would not expect a 'conservation easement' by definition to allow for a lot of further development of the property. If you would never want such a deal, then that is your choice, but if folk are dealing with them and deeding land or an easement to anyone without both reading it and having a lawyer look at it, then that is foolish. If your neighbor doesn't like what her Dad signed, then that is a shame, but it still was a private, voluntary contract between people who had the opportunity to become educated about what they were signing. I don't see how that mistake makes the idea a bad one, just the mix of these people and this contract.

[FreeInWV]

Maybe where you live, but not where I live.

Around here, family farmers are being exploited by so called "non-profit" foundations. Their story is familiar. It has happened in so many places already.

Selective enforcement of the Endangered Species Act and wetlands regulations, predator reintroduction, massive land purchases, and protracted disputes over land-use are the tools that these "do good" non-profits use against unsuspecting family farmers and property owners. Groups like TWC or the WV Highlands Conservancy prey on the fears of unsuspecting widows and the like. They look for land that is already valuable and pristine due to the good stewardship of the current owners. Then they depress the value of property until the current owners are forced to sell it for pennies on the dollar. Then they subdivide it, sell the valuable 10% to a developer for a huge profit, and the other 90% to the govt for a somewhat smaller profit.

They use grant money to purchase the property. This comes out of the taxes that I pay. When they sell it to the govt. This again comes out of the taxes that I pay. Then the property is taken off of the property tax rolls. Then my taxes raise because the tax base just decreased. After a while, this compounds and taxes become oppressive. Businesses then leave the county, county services get cut and schools begin to suffer. After a while, people move away because the schools s#ck, there are no jobs, the taxes are too high, and it takes the ambulance or police 2 hours to arrive. Then the farmers (the only remaining job) get told that their cows are disturbing critical wetlands, and that they cannot go near any water. Then it gets worse and the people that are left become what the environmentalists call "willing sellers".

My family has owned its land since before WV was a state. Do you won "any" land? More than an acre? Personally, I don't think you own anything.

I also don't think that it is my duty to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars over my lifetime so that you can have someplace to ride your horses. If you want someplace to ride, buy it yourself.


Read this link about your heroes at TWC:
http://www.paragonpowerhouse.org/A%20shocking%20exposé!%20The%20Nature%20Conservancy.htm

More of their tactics:
http://www.paragonpowerhouse.org/blueprint_for_the_destruction_of.htm

[razorback-bert]

I knew what you meant, just lawyer joking.

The problem my neighbor has is she pushed her father to do the deal, she was a big supporter of TNC and believed what they told her.

I found this soap opera, when I last visited the land in 1999. I have no idea how it has played out.

I do know from experience that in land squabbles like this one, the only happy people in the end are the lawyers.

[HairOfTheDog]

You know.... you had two well thought out paragraphs that outlined your position. You blew it with paragraph 3, 4 and 5. If I respond only to the personal insults and not the meat of your post, than perhaps you will realize how distructive they were to your argument.

I do own property, sensitive saltwater beach front that can't get more regulated. I know what regulation can do to property owners, which is why I fail to see how voluntary contracts are the devil incarnate.

I also rent acreage where I keep my horses.

And this is not about me alone wanting a place to ride. It is about the rural way of life that includes fishing, hunting, hiking, camping, and riding... all done on lands and waters that are open to the public. I don't think anyone has ever said "if you want to hike, buy your own mountain" or "if you want to hunt, buy your own forest" to me before.... But then we have a tradition of public lands here where all can enjoy the outdoors. I do think that some lands owned and open to the public is in our best interest, and yes, worth my tax money more then some other things my taxes pay for. We are not very free to travel if there are no public places and have rights only on our own property.

[FreeInWV]

You never answered my question. More than an acre? Please don't list anything owned by a coop, just any deeded property that "you" own.

Also please don't presume to speak for rural people. While fishing, hunting, hiking, camping, and riding are fine pasttimes, they hardly define the rural way of life. Rural people do not seek out public lands for hiking. City people do that. Liberal people who rent an apartment or townhouse in the city. You know the kind. Most rural folk work their land. Either with livestock or farming. They have little time for camping. They are out feeding their cows.

You seem to say that special recreation areas for you and your horses are well worth your tax money. Hmmmm. I can see that, but guess what - Its my tax money too! And I think its a dumb idea. Around here, if you don't own land and still want to hunt or fish, you buy a permit off of someone who has land. People around here actually own land.

You also seem to dodge the substantive part of my post, so I assume you have no credible response. I will however spell out a few reasons why conservation easements are bad news for a landowner. Unlike realtors and used car salesmen, land trust representatives are unlicensed and unregulated. They are free to indulge in less ethical behavior with zero oversight. They are not bound by full disclosure, and can say anything they want to close a deal. The foundations they represent define easements ambiguously, and make them subject to third party interpretation and enforcement. More than likely, they control the third party. They base these easements on the Uniform Conservation Easement Act which they themselves contrived to fit their needs. It allows for easements to be open ended, and biased toward the land trust. They are a perpetual encumberance on the land. All liabilities are born by the landowner, as well as risk to the remaining rights. The easement places a cloud on the title, precluding the acquisition of title insurance. This insurance is required by banks when selling, refinancing, or using the property as collateral. By accepting an easement, you give away most of the value of your property.

I don't believe there should be no public lands. I do feel that the founding father's concept of public land being roads, forts and govt buildings is a bit strict, but this country has gone overboard.

[HairOfTheDog]

Also please don't presume to speak for rural people.

I speak for me. I think people are grown-ups and can enter into contracts, or not. You think the conservation easements are a bad idea. OK, that would be the *or not* part mentioned above.

I have articulated as best I can why I hold what is a moderate rather than extreme-right position on this. You have made the argument, or tried to, make it about me and whether I am credible enough to have such an opinion. In your mind, I never will be. OK, but it isn't helpful. Those city people who you think know nothing are writing the environmental rules right now, because they outnumber you (and me). We can either come up with answers that are better and will sell, or we can lose, and whine about it.