I just went to a presentation on a "land trust."

It's an interesting institution.

On the one hand I of course appreciate the preservation of rich rural landscapes.
On the other, the one I learned about seemed to have a major effect of creating, in effect, an idyllic undeveloped preserve for the prosperous at, to some degree, taxpayer cost. (Of course we liberals could take the conservative approach and ackowledge that the less the Federal government has to spend, the less it can waste on subsidies for Large Capital. But that is another subject.) Does the general welfare benefit from keeping beautiful land beautiful? I guess so; there is one less valley to get screwed up by stupid development and I suppose as a holding action for the next few geneerations or so that I can buy into that. But I am not anti-development; you must know that by now; and so it offends me when I hear people talking as if it was a crime that a hundred houses a year are being built in this particular area.

As I sat there listening, one thing that flashed through my mind is that I am sure that at the end of the presentation they will ask me for a donation so that they can buy land which will, despite anyone's intentions, make it too expensive for me to ever be able to buy a cabin in that area. By preserving land in that valley they will restrict supply, make private land such a rare resource that only digital millionaires (we still have many) can afford it...and they want me to help support that with my own dollars. Irony.

But what else to do? Overall, this land trust matter is something I will have to think about; I basically favor them. After all, if people want to donate development rights so that their land is preserved, well what is wrong with that? Nothing of course...But when you look at the potential for abuse and manipulation, at the potential for self-dealing, at the effect of simply making land more valuable by (puporttedly) giving it away...Well I don't know enough to make a judgment and it may well vary trust to trust. Lots to learn on this issue. It may well be that as with many things in life, nothing is perfect and you have to weigh the gain against the pain.

But one thing I pretty-much know for sure is that buying land in an area where there is an active, energetic land trust is probably a very good investment. It would be nice to Google Map their locations.

For those interested, this blog --  Nature Noted --specializes in following the land trust world.

Comments

[Brian Miller]

Sorry, David, but in a country that will be approaching 400 million people, having rural fantasy escape cottages (or faux rural suburban McMansions) mean that most semi-rural landscapes without land trusts will be devastated. Five acre rural "escapes" damage a variety of land and economic values of once rural land-so if land trusts can reduce that-even at the cost of making the middle class fantasy of a rural escape more expensive, then how can I complain? Land will still be very affordable for REAL rural escapes in Nebraska and North Dakota.

I've just been buzzed on my bicycle by too many gigantic Ford Excursions on once rural roads to feel much sympathy for the faux rural ideal.

[Pat Burns]

Thanks for the plug, David. I love the Google Maps idea. Check out the holdings from space!

[Kent]

Brian has it exactly right.

There's plenty of rural land in the center of this country. Some of it is absolutely beautiful and becoming even more depopulated. But if you want your idylic rural getaway within commuting distance of a major metro area, forget it.

Of course one doesn't have to OWN a cabin to enjoy wildlands. I spent a good bit of my life treking through the wildlands of Alaska, Oregon, Washington, Chile, Guatemala, and various other places. None of which I actually owned.

ACCESS is the key, not ownership.

[Brian Miller]

David does make one good point (as usual): the close relationship between affluence (suburban) and open space preservation. The size olf the houses "borrowing the scenery" at Briones Regional Park (East Bay, SF Bay Area) is amazing :)

It's too bad that the taste of today's gentry is almost universally bad :( The only thing that matters is size, parking capacity, and the use of as many fake "traditional" materials as one can choose out of a generic McMansion "designer's" catalog. Yuck-but that's a whole 'nother topic :)

[Brian Miller]

I would add in agreement with Kent's comment that the insistence on OWNERSHIP in fact reduces the ACCESS to such rural lands. And, in insideous ways-for example, access to fresh, local and unique produce is reduced by suburbanization of the countryside. Maybe such is elitist in its own way, but... Add in the great intensification of traffic on once rural roads-which impacts more than brave, foolish road cyclists-it kills a lot of wildlife, too.

[clew]

My favorite land trusts work hardest at keeping local fertile cropland farmed, usually by small farms; and as I understand it farmers are often 'land-poor', so it isn't a luxury lifestyle subsidy. Even if it were, I could get my bit through WWOOF.

Besides, paving topsoil is hard to undo, and if transport gets even moderately more expensive I'll be happy that there are more farms around here instead of more suburbs. It's true that stopping sprawl will be a windfall for those who have already built in the sticks, but if I think it's stupid to cut up all that land I'll put up with making some lucky ducks a bit luckier.

Also, what Kent said about access vs. ownership, with the caveat that there's most access when there's publicly accessible land near the big cities where most of the people are.

[clew]

Afterthought - of course beautiful places are going to be fringed with expensive houses. Even if the Best Places had been saved by George Washington/Johnny Appleseed/John Muir, and the market allowed to spread people out afterwards, we'd have that effect; transport of the rich is now both cheap and easy, and we have less and less of the subsistence ag or fishing that traditionally supports poor people in lovely places.

Of course, since all our decisions are made this side of the Veil, it is wise to keep an eye out for private gain described as public gain - I think complaints about the possible ugliness of windmills are usually in that category, for instance.