jumpshooter
Member
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2015
- Messages
- 42
Randy,
You had a recent discussion about Conservation Easements on your podcast and I was hoping to further that discussion some. First, let me say that I have worked with and helped negotiate several Conservation Easements and I know the subject rather well. Also that landowners rights are right there with moving the needle for me with gun control.
Your discussion of CE's left me somewhat frustrated and feeling that only one side of the equation was discussed. You discussed the fact that CE's offer landowners a way to keep properties in the family in cases where there are generational passing on's of property and as way to ease the burden of property taxes and income taxes. However there are some serious issues with Conservation Easements. Most of the ones which are economically worth doing encumber the property in perpetuity. The ones which last 30 or 40 years do not pay enough to make it worth a landowners time (at least the ones which I have seen).
These CE's generally speaking combine all the parcels in to one or a few parcels. This is a way to extinguish future development rights. Furthermore, they generally limit where buildings can be built, were farming and other land use practices can occur, what items can be extracted (gas, oil, timber, rock, and many other resources). (By the way, do you know that the term resource in Latin means to "rise again"?)
Part of the issue with CE's that I have is that they are short sided and really ignore the real issue, that the cost of owning land is continuing to increase and that owning land in the future is going to be more difficult and more expensive. My college forestry economist professor made the most accurate assessment of CE's that I have ever heard. He said that Conservation Easements are a short-term solution to a long-term problem. We aren't going to eliminate landowners ability to do anything else and by stripping the value off of the land, we are only prolonging the bleeding.
What we should be doing is using these dollars to help put small parcels into larger blocks so that these working lands can continue to be working lands and make a scale of economy which works for the landowners.
Furthermore, a lot of these CE's are destroying any future market which could come about. In the last 10 years we have seen new market come about which have never been opportunities in the past and because some landowners have placed restrictive easements on their lands, they can't react to these lands. For example, carbon sequestration and carbon sales are now a possibility and this isn't something which some landowners are able to work with (due to needing at least 5,000 acres of homogeneous vegetation) because their CE's didn't address this market, or it is a right which was sold. While 5,000 acres isn't necessarily a small landowner, it could be seen as a viable piece of property in some states with some land uses.
My point with this is that most CE's are very shortsighted in their ability to predict future markets and future uses and if you are already struggling to hold on, you may be shooting yourself in the foot. From a conservation standpoint, our organizations which are purchasing easements should be taking small pieces (or even larger pieces) and putting them into larger working lands. Land Trusts, Open Space Districts, and groups like the RMEF even hold these easements. We should be putting pressure on these groups to look at other options. One option, while it is controversial is something like the APR. While I understand that there are issues with prices being driven up and other affects on existing landowners, the idea of taking lands which are willing sellers and combining them with other properties to make more viable lands seems to me like a real possibility.
Anyway, just wanted to further this discussion some more.
You had a recent discussion about Conservation Easements on your podcast and I was hoping to further that discussion some. First, let me say that I have worked with and helped negotiate several Conservation Easements and I know the subject rather well. Also that landowners rights are right there with moving the needle for me with gun control.
Your discussion of CE's left me somewhat frustrated and feeling that only one side of the equation was discussed. You discussed the fact that CE's offer landowners a way to keep properties in the family in cases where there are generational passing on's of property and as way to ease the burden of property taxes and income taxes. However there are some serious issues with Conservation Easements. Most of the ones which are economically worth doing encumber the property in perpetuity. The ones which last 30 or 40 years do not pay enough to make it worth a landowners time (at least the ones which I have seen).
These CE's generally speaking combine all the parcels in to one or a few parcels. This is a way to extinguish future development rights. Furthermore, they generally limit where buildings can be built, were farming and other land use practices can occur, what items can be extracted (gas, oil, timber, rock, and many other resources). (By the way, do you know that the term resource in Latin means to "rise again"?)
Part of the issue with CE's that I have is that they are short sided and really ignore the real issue, that the cost of owning land is continuing to increase and that owning land in the future is going to be more difficult and more expensive. My college forestry economist professor made the most accurate assessment of CE's that I have ever heard. He said that Conservation Easements are a short-term solution to a long-term problem. We aren't going to eliminate landowners ability to do anything else and by stripping the value off of the land, we are only prolonging the bleeding.
What we should be doing is using these dollars to help put small parcels into larger blocks so that these working lands can continue to be working lands and make a scale of economy which works for the landowners.
Furthermore, a lot of these CE's are destroying any future market which could come about. In the last 10 years we have seen new market come about which have never been opportunities in the past and because some landowners have placed restrictive easements on their lands, they can't react to these lands. For example, carbon sequestration and carbon sales are now a possibility and this isn't something which some landowners are able to work with (due to needing at least 5,000 acres of homogeneous vegetation) because their CE's didn't address this market, or it is a right which was sold. While 5,000 acres isn't necessarily a small landowner, it could be seen as a viable piece of property in some states with some land uses.
My point with this is that most CE's are very shortsighted in their ability to predict future markets and future uses and if you are already struggling to hold on, you may be shooting yourself in the foot. From a conservation standpoint, our organizations which are purchasing easements should be taking small pieces (or even larger pieces) and putting them into larger working lands. Land Trusts, Open Space Districts, and groups like the RMEF even hold these easements. We should be putting pressure on these groups to look at other options. One option, while it is controversial is something like the APR. While I understand that there are issues with prices being driven up and other affects on existing landowners, the idea of taking lands which are willing sellers and combining them with other properties to make more viable lands seems to me like a real possibility.
Anyway, just wanted to further this discussion some more.