Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: countrydummy
So what is so wrong with land trusts? Seems to me that they are doing it the right way: If you want to control what happens to a piece of land, *buy it*. A tax break (rarely ever a bad idea) makes it easier for them. So what?

Your comments seem to say that some family will somehow be *forced* to sell to these trusts instead of a family member. Not quite so... the seller can sell to whomever they wish, can they not?
6 posted on 02/18/2003 10:29:30 AM PST by Ramius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Ramius
re: Your comments seem to say that some family will somehow be *forced* to sell to these trusts instead of a family member. Not quite so... the seller can sell to whomever they wish, can they not?)))

Maybe he's suggesting that a private purchaser would be outbid because of a tax advantage that the land-trust has. But someone putting land into a trust already suffers the loss of much of its possible use in development, so it's not that much of an advantage.

Frankly, there's a lot that's voluntary about the landtrusts that make it more appealing than the standard condemn-and-seize eminent domain operations. At least there's some private control, and sometimes the land becomes available for recreational use, improving the values of private pty nearby.

Watched a waterfall area in NC go through some scary weirdness. First the state didn't bid enough on the property, then tried to seize the property later from the owner without paying him FMV for it. The owner had already deeded much of the scenic part of the land for **public** enjoyment, a gift! Didn't keep up with what eventually happened...

8 posted on 02/18/2003 10:37:23 AM PST by Mamzelle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson