We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
I am sure they are one and the same. The name is slightly different here in the mountains of the west. However, my question is not the technical details, but rather how do these structures differ from each other in the process of managing the land? I have asked several lawyers and they get a little confused about the family foundation piece. But, I believe the land can be put into the family foundation, and equally protected and managed by future generations of the same family for the purpose of protecting the land from development. I think, but I do not know for sure that the confusion comes about when we think of long range plans. Any insights or experiences you have would be great. Aside from the land, we have created a piece of work that the family will manage and preserve for the public, I am wondering if they can do the same for the land within the legal structure of a "foundation".
Do you know that the Nature Conservancy re-sells some of it's land to preferred donors (highest bidder)? I do not mind that that is necessary to fund the work of the Conservancy, what I mind is that the land is not sold to future farmers, but rather to wealthy people who just build big McMansion log houses. It would be better to try to keep the land involved in some form of "organic" farming in order to help sustain the surrounding rural communities--don't you think?
We did a conservation easement/Low Country Land Trust on our plantation. The land remains in its pristine state into perpetuity and any buyers, of course, are aware of that. We did not deal with the Nature Conservancy. I'm not sure why anyone would. The land is still ours to farm as we wish and to sell to anyone who wants land that may not be developed. The house is there and the land used to raise tomatoes. It is tidal marsh right off a creek to a river that leads right to the ocean, and there are three duck ponds, so a hunter, fisherman would probably love to buy it. But we have all rights to it.
Why would anyone deal with the Nature Conservancy if they reserve the right to sell? The land is not theirs to sell. I would heartily object to the Conservancy gaining from it. The easement devalued our property by half. Nice tax breaks, but no one else's gain as far as I perceive it.
I might be as mixed up as 'anonymous', but I do know exactly what we did, and no one can tell us what we can or cannot do as long as we preserve the land. What has been farmed is still farmed. The house is on the National Register and we have to show it/open to public twice a year. That doesn't count the pink tour bus that drives through the yard everyday at 3. :) When all of us are down, sometimes we dress up as white trash and sit on the front steps smoking and drinking cheap beer.
Thanks to both of you--conserving your places, I consider to be a personal gift to one and all.
I have a question: once you place the land into a trust does that protect it from lawsuits? What is the best way to take the land out of reach of the greedy? Our place is very vulnerable to walk by, ride by, and now 4wheel drive by traffic. I am concerned that someone could claim to get hurt on the land and then sue to claim it through a process of liens, lawyers, etc.
Whoever is the owner of the land is liable for any injuries that happen on the property. But, as Buddy said, insurance surely has that taken care of with the policy.
You asked how to keep the land out of reach of the greedy? I'm not sure if that went with the follow-up question, but if the trust is irrevocable, it has to stay with the terms of the easement. No one can change that. I'm not sure they even have revocable easements. --- I just reread your question again, and I think you meant lawsuits as a means of getting the land. Insurance should take care of that.
I would sure have a problem with people 4-wheeling on my property. Too easy to have an accident. Post some signs warning them off the property - for your sake.
What a nice photograph. Sometimes when I read the news, no often times, I feel like people like the ones in your photo no longer exist in our nation. People doing something good just because it's the right thing to do.