Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Can we protect land for nature and carbon by simply buying it up?

whoownsengland.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 156 posts

Re: Can we protect land for nature and carbon by simply buying it up?

#91

Post by theptip »

Another option for the UK would be to abolish or substantially reduce the monarchy, and include a one-off wealth tax on the aristocracy.

A huge swathe of the land in the UK is owned by the crown and individual royals, with ownership lineage being extremely dubious if you don’t accept the concept that the monarchy has a God-granted right to dominion over the people.

Taking the crown estate back into the trust of the people would be a good start.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_the_British_royal_...

Re: Can we protect land for nature and carbon by simply buying it up?

#92

Post by dotancohen »

donatj wrote: post #19
Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote: post #3

No. Most places have 'immanent domain' type laws were the gov can essentially seize your property (forcing a sale) to give to someone else. A rich developer could see all that sweet sweet natural land and make a strong case (with lobbying, backroom deals, the usual) that it would be better used with a new condo or factory or strip mine and get it anyway.

So you get your money back, and then you use it to buy other land. Same same?

Land is not fungible.

Re: Can we protect land for nature and carbon by simply buying it up?

#93

Post by mcguire »

toast0 wrote: post #18
throwaway894345 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, TIL the Missouri river flows through Montana (from the map on the American Prairie site). It's not clear from a cursory glance at the site whether American Prairie is giving the land to the public, or whether they retain ownership and are simply allowing public access. I would think giving it to some federal parks/wildlife agency would come with stronger protections than an NGO could provide. I'm also curious if…

> I would think giving it to some federal parks/wildlife agency would come with stronger protections than an NGO could provide. Not really. Federal agencies sell parklands from time to time. It's easier to have an NGO that won't sell the land for a long time.

Several years ago there was a kerfuffle in Texas: The Nature Conservancy had traded a piece of land, that had been donated to it, to the state parks and wildlife department with the understanding that the land was going to be under their conservation regime. Several years later, TPWD was reportedly considering selling the land to a group to form a hunting reserve. I don't recall how it ended (but I suspect the sale did not go through), but there were threats floating around that the Nature Conservancy would no longer make those kinds of trades with Texas.

Re: Can we protect land for nature and carbon by simply buying it up?

#95

Post by aporetics »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #38
throwaway894345 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, TIL the Missouri river flows through Montana (from the map on the American Prairie site). It's not clear from a cursory glance at the site whether American Prairie is giving the land to the public, or whether they retain ownership and are simply allowing public access. I would think giving it to some federal parks/wildlife agency would come with stronger protections than an NGO could provide. I'm also curious if…

> I would think giving it to some federal parks/wildlife agency would come with stronger protections than an NGO could provide. The Federal government is not a reliable steward of public wilderness lands. Their incentives and motivations are quite different from a purpose-built NGO. In practice an NGO can offer a much more consistent and aligned implementation of objectives.

Example: Bears Ears National Monument

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bears_Ears_National_Monument?w...

Re: Can we protect land for nature and carbon by simply buying it up?

#96

Post by dragonwriter »

voxic11 wrote: post #88
dragonwriter wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> valid reason to exercise eminent domain powers for some reason The reason is: (1) eminent domain isn't Constitutionally limited in purpose beyond that it must be a public purpose. (2) State governments under the US Constitution have general police powers, so any purpose they aren't expressly Constitutionally forbidden to pursue is a valid public purpose, as distinct from the federal government being one of granted…

How is using property to profit private business "for public use"? > "[the decision eliminates] any distinction between private and public use of property—and thereby effectively delete[s] the words 'for public use' from the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment." > "This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold, against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated purpose is a…

> How is using property to profit private business “for public use”?

Because, as the Supreme Court has consistently held since interpreting the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause to apply the 5th Amendment’s protections against the states in the first place (without which, the issue would be moot since absent such application there would be no federal constraint at all) use in which the state action is pursuing a legitimate public purpose has been held to be a “public use”.

Which presumably you already know, because surely you read the majority opinion in Kelo in the course of locating and quoting (without attribution) O’Connor’s dissent.

Re: Can we protect land for nature and carbon by simply buying it up?

#97

Post by yonaguska »

mcguire wrote: post #93
toast0 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would think giving it to some federal parks/wildlife agency would come with stronger protections than an NGO could provide. Not really. Federal agencies sell parklands from time to time. It's easier to have an NGO that won't sell the land for a long time.

Several years ago there was a kerfuffle in Texas: The Nature Conservancy had traded a piece of land, that had been donated to it, to the state parks and wildlife department with the understanding that the land was going to be under their conservation regime. Several years later, TPWD was reportedly considering selling the land to a group to form a hunting reserve. I don't recall how it ended (but I suspect the sale d…

Interesting, because a hunting reserve is probably one of the easiest ways to actually monetize conservation and allow it to pay for itself.

Re: Can we protect land for nature and carbon by simply buying it up?

#98

Post by thatguy0900 »

obowersa wrote: post #75
radford-neal wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"...a law that required a landowner to sell to a not-for-profit at the market rate if they were selling and they couldn't be outbid by a private buyer" Why would a law be required for this? Wouldn't the landowner just naturally be willing to sell to the not-for-profit entity if they were willing to pay as much or more than someone else? I have to suspect that this is really about forcing the landowner to sell at less…

TL;DR: Sometimes! So its a little more complex and a little bit more nuanced. The mechanism is part of the land reform policy and called the ‘Community Right To Buy’. Ahead of time, a community body (which has a legal definition) can register an interest in buying qualifying land. All of these notes of interest are available from the registers of scotland and has to be renewed regularly/etc. At the point that a lando…

So if I want to give land to a friend, I can be forced to sell it if one of these groups have shown interest? That sounds very strange

Re: Can we protect land for nature and carbon by simply buying it up?

#99

Post by ekidd »

hutzlibu wrote: post #77
ekidd wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would think giving it to some federal parks/wildlife agency would come with stronger protections than an NGO could provide. There is supposedly an island on the Maine coast that was given to the federal government for conservation purposes (probably for migratory birds). The feds later sold it off. Last I heard of it, people were raising money to buy it back and protect it again. Federal protection really only wo…

"So why not let people keep doing that here?" Because loud ATV engines are opposite to the goal of protecting bird habitats? In general I agree for multi recreational use, but maybe with something less disturbing? (like using electric engines only for example)

Happily, they actually closed all the existing ATV trails that went anywhere near the bird habitat. And the ATV woodlot itself was not a significant conservation target. (And the ATV use was long-standing.)

A successful local land trust relies on both small donations and a certain measure of political support. Many towns exempt them (partially or fully) from property taxes, so I feel it's admirable for them to look for ways to serve the entire community. Probably very few land trusts will ever find themselves owning ATV trails. But it's good for them to think about what public needs they can serve, even if the answers are sometimes surprising.

Re: Can we protect land for nature and carbon by simply buying it up?

#100

Post by NiceWayToDoIT »

> "just 1% of the population own half the land in England"

This is idea in same level as quantitative easing, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing) "Lets give rich people money so they recover economy" what happens "Rich people use that money £895 billion buy stocks, so they inflate market even more and not even penny trickles down to ordinary people, so they become even poorer.

Paying rich people that own land to sequester carbon is equally, (not sure which word to use) ... evil, diabolic as QE scam for the rich. Probability is high that they will use that money not to plant trees but to buy more land, even more increasing gap between wealthy and poor.

So, my question is when does wealthy people greed and naivety of poor ends?

Post reply on HN