[freeper12]

Also keep in mind that in many communities, it is actually better from a local-tax perspective to loose the land to a non-prfit, than to have a row of houses put in that need to be added to the sewer, and in general, if a new house has the "average" number of kids (i.e. about 2.5), they in general cost more to have from a school perspective, than the owners pay in property taxes.

In my town, the less houses the better and if some rich person wants to sell or donate his/her development rights away to a NON-GOVERNMENTAL agency, I am all for it. I don't think the govt should be in the business of buying up land though...but thats just me.

[Kay Ludlow]

In my town, the less houses the better and if some rich person wants to sell or donate his/her development rights away to a NON-GOVERNMENTAL agency, I am all for it. I don't think the govt should be in the business of buying up land though...but thats just me.

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.