[HairOfTheDog]

I would rather see the full text. A tax break for private sellers who sell their land for conservation to land trusts does not strike me as wrong yet, but then I am a bit of a square peg here on conservation issues.

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.

[HairOfTheDog]

er... rather, tell me why *there* shouldn't be a tax break for leaving lands undeveloped...

[B Knotts]

Simple. The government already owns way too much land, and these land trusts are merely a vehicle for the government to acquire even more land.

They should be selling off land to lower the deficit, not accumulating more.

[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.