Who knows about Land Trust?

[Zephyr2]

I always shake my head when hearing about people who do this, and quite a lot of people do.

There are always compromises that need to be made in this world. Let's say a golf club owns 100 acres of wetlands that happen to abut a larger natural area, and there is potential for trails on this 100 acres connecting the two, and maybe a paddling route as well. The club is already there and built, but they can't actually build anything on the wetlands yet it is private property and inaccessible to birders, hikers, paddlers, etc. By donating a conservation easement they get some financial reward, the land trust makes the deal, and the public gets to enjoy a larger natural area. This is an actual example I have seen work. It doesn't have to be a gold club either. Sometimes a narrow corridor of land can provide a trail connector across private property that allows the public much expanded access to natural areas. The landowner gets a little reward, the public gains outdoor recreation and more access to nature.

[jackmichigan]

Originally Posted by Deserterer

Building a house(s) is hardly a conservation-friendly activity though. I always shake my head when hearing about people who do this, and quite a lot of people do. But if a person really cares about conservation, they wouldn't build or allow others to build on their easement. It basically says "I care about conservation, but its secondary to my personal and financial interests". And isn't that the same attitude that land developers have? They too are willing to preserve a duck pond or stand of trees if it helps them develop and sell. The best you can say about this approach to "conservation" is that its merely a "less destructive form of development" than some other forms. Its really not conservation.

It really depends upon the specifics of the situation. If someone owns 100 acres and wishes to retain 1 acre as a building site, there can be a significant amount of conservation value in doing so. Of course, there are always those who try to abuse the federal tax law pertaining to conservation easements. I've seen developers leave narrow corridors of trees between their subdivision house lots, pretending that was conservation while greatly fragmenting the habitat. Most abuses have been from those whose first concern was their financial gain with little real concern for the natural landscape. Most people that I know who have donated--or even sold--conservation easements did so because they truly wanted to protect their land. Regardless of the potential tax benefit, one can almost always get more money if they don't engage in conservation.

[RobertFisher]

Thanks for the information. Good stuff. I will take time to explore every topic further.

One of the considerations that is very important to me, is the credibility of these trust organizations. I don't even trust this mission with my own offspring; to be handing assets over to some other people (essentially) I would like to see a scheme that is ironclad and not subject to too many dependencies. I think every potential donor will want that kind of confidence.

Ideally for me, there should be some federal program which has simple and clear rules (the more complex the more loopholes). Take the Individual Retirement Account ("IRA") program for example, it is simple, clear, and credible; I can throw money in it any time without worrying about whether it will do what I think it will do, or whether the assets has risk of being stolen. Can we trust the Federal govt with the cookie jar? Will Federal government last forever? I don't know but that is the highest authority of the land and the best we have at this time. I often think about drawing up a plan to suggest to my congress rep.

My own wish is to shield land from all human activities forever. No mining, no oil drilling, no roads, no Walmart, no farming, not hunting/fishing, not even allowing hiking, bird watching, or photography, etc. Ideally no human will ever set foot on that piece of land again. That is the simplest of simple rules, the clearest of clear goals, and the easiest to enforce.

May be extreme, but I think that's the best way to truly return it to Mother Nature and her other inhabitants.

Originally Posted by jackmichigan

A land trust--also called a land conservancy--works to protect land primarily in two ways:

1) By holding fee title to the land, usually as a nature preserve. Some own "working" forests or farm land to promote sustainable use, but most do not.

2) By holding conservation easements (in some states called conservation restrictions) to protect the conservation values of the land by permanently prohibiting or limiting development.



As noted above, an easement is one of the principal ways that a land trust protects land, but they also own land outright--either acquired through purchase or donation.

Land trusts are private non-profit charitable organizations recognized under Section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code, meaning that all donations to them are tax deductible and there is IRS oversight to their operations. I believe that there are a few municipalities, primarily out east, that have conservancy-like authorities, but they are not subject to IRS restraints. If there were ever a choice between contributing to a government entity or to a private land trust, I would always recommend the land trust. Government entities, being political, can change over time and can more easily undo or ignore conservation restrictions.



Land trusts do take ownership of land, but most of them also hold conservation easements as a way to protect land. A conservation easement gives the land trust both the right and obligation to uphold the terms of the easement. Also, while many easements prohibit all development, many also allow for limited development which is usually restricted to a small building envelope which is spelled out in the easement. With all conservation easements, the terms of the easement can be quite flexible and are set in accordance with the desires of the landowner, provided there is a conservation purpose and that the land trust agrees to uphold those terms. Of course, a land trust can decline to accept a conservation easement if it doesn't meet its priorities or if its enforcement would be too difficult. For a land trust, accepting a conservation easement is accepting a perpetual responsibility. Therefore, most land trusts build up endowment funds to meet this perpetual obligation. There are also insurance programs which many land trusts pay into to help assure that enforcement responsibilities can be met.



If a land trust ceases to exist, all assets are required to be transferred to a similar organization. This is a requirement under IRS regulations and also a requirement of state charitable trust laws. Still, it is valid to be concerned about the long-term viability of any organization. Many land trusts have spelled out cooperative agreements to back each other up, and a number of land trusts have undergone mergers to better assure long-term viability.



No, a director or land trust can't really profit from an easement. Once acquired, there is no marketable value to the easement. In reality, holding an easement is really a liability--since money needs to be expended to oversee and enforce its terms--but, for accounting purposes, most record an easement on their books at a nominal value, say $1 or $50 or so.

The only way that a conservation can be reversed or undone is through court action. That can be done if the character of the land changes in such a way that the easement terms are no longer relevant. For example, if the easement is narrowly defined to protect the habitat for an endangered species, and that species then becomes extinct, then the purpose of the easement would no longer be valid. To avoid that situation, most easements are constructed with broad conservation purposes--to make sure that the easement remains enforceable even if there is a change to one particular aspect of its purpose.



Unfortunately, no land--even that owned or restricted by a land trust--is exempt from governmental powers of eminent domain. The best way to try to bolster an easement is to enumerate purposes aligned with state or federal policies or priorities. One thing to be aware of is that a municipality can not condemn state interests and a state can't condemn federal interests. It's largely untested territory, but placing purposes in the easement which uphold state or federal purposes may create a situation where the condemning authority will choose to look elsewhere. I also know that a few conservancies hold easements jointly with the federal government, so those easements (usually purchased under the Farm Bill) are more secure, even though with politics some things are never completely secure. Also, I believe that a few states may limit the ability to condemn protected property but I'm not sure about California.


Some things that you didn't ask:

One strategy which offers the greatest protection is to donate the fee interest to one land trust and a conservation easement to another.

You can also make a fee donation of land and retain a life estate, thereby continuing to use the property for the rest of your life. It would only transfer to the land trust upon your death, or upon relinquishing the life estate.

Another avenue would be to donate a conservation easement on the land, getting the advantage of a tax deduction, with the fee being transferred through your will. You could include a requirement that the easement then go to another organization so that there are multiple layers of protection.

In some instances, land trusts will buy your land through a bargain-sale arrangement: you receive payment for part of the market value and the difference is eligible for a tax deduction. This may be particularly useful if you know that a land trust has identified a property that they wish to acquire. You could pre-acquire the land--perhaps even through your 1031 exchange plan--and sell it to them at half price, or whatever, to recoup some of your investment. The charitable donation element may even offset what might have been owed in capital gains tax. There are lots of possibilities for creative thinkers.

[Deserterer]

Originally Posted by Zephyr2

There are always compromises that need to be made in this world. Let's say a golf club owns 100 acres of wetlands that happen to abut a larger natural area, and there is potential for trails on this 100 acres connecting the two, and maybe a paddling route as well. The club is already there and built, but they can't actually build anything on the wetlands yet it is private property and inaccessible to birders, hikers, paddlers, etc. By donating a conservation easement they get some financial reward, the land trust makes the deal, and the public gets to enjoy a larger natural area. This is an actual example I have seen work. It doesn't have to be a gold club either. Sometimes a narrow corridor of land can provide a trail connector across private property that allows the public much expanded access to natural areas. The landowner gets a little reward, the public gains outdoor recreation and more access to nature.

The compromise has already been made. Something like 50% of the earth's land surface has already been altered by humans, and much higher percentage in many areas. So every time someone nickels and dimes away a portion of their land to development, while only conserving some, that percentage grows. Land development/land use change are leading causes of species and habitat loss, and a predictor of other environmental degradation.



And anything that contributes to habitat loss is not conservation in my book. If you want to conserve, conserve. If you want to build a house build it on developed land.

[jackmichigan]

Originally Posted by Zephyr2

There are always compromises that need to be made in this world. Let's say a golf club owns 100 acres of wetlands that happen to abut a larger natural area, and there is potential for trails on this 100 acres connecting the two, and maybe a paddling route as well. The club is already there and built, but they can't actually build anything on the wetlands yet it is private property and inaccessible to birders, hikers, paddlers, etc. By donating a conservation easement they get some financial reward, the land trust makes the deal, and the public gets to enjoy a larger natural area. This is an actual example I have seen work. It doesn't have to be a gold club either. Sometimes a narrow corridor of land can provide a trail connector across private property that allows the public much expanded access to natural areas. The landowner gets a little reward, the public gains outdoor recreation and more access to nature.

Most conservation easements do not require public access. The grantor of a conservation easement may allow for public access in the easement, but that is rather rare. Easement-protected property remains private property and most owners choose to retain their privacy. The purpose of most conservation easements is to prohibit destruction of the natural resources found on the land--not in providing public access to them.