←back to thread

291 points mooreds | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
darth_avocado ◴[] No.45291550[source]
America needs more land that’s under stewardship of people who want to conserve it for the future. We’ve lost so much native biodiversity, but there’s still pockets that can revive it if managed appropriately.
replies(4): >>45291691 #>>45291720 #>>45291878 #>>45291956 #
BeetleB ◴[] No.45291878[source]
In the early 80's, Congress passed some laws that allow people to buy undeveloped land, and declare it to be undeveloped for perpetuity (no one can develop on it even if sold). The owner gets some tax benefits from doing so.

It became a niche segment in the real estate. The idea is you find land that is cheap, but you have a feeling it has mineral wealth. You buy it cheap, get the survey done, and show that it was really worth a lot more. But instead of building a mine/oil well, you declare the land undeveloped for perpetuity. The tax benefit you receive is commensurate to the (now highly increased) value of the land.

You make a profit this way, and the environment benefits.

It's a very risky part of real estate. There are lots of environmental groups who closely monitor the land, and will file a lawsuit if they suspect you are developing on the land. Fighting lawsuits is part of the risk.

Anyway, the person who did the presentation showed some interesting statistics. Supposedly, for every 10 acres of land that is developed in a given year, roughly 9 acres are declared undevelopable for perpetuity. That's really significant (if true).

replies(4): >>45292634 #>>45292704 #>>45292759 #>>45292802 #
mschuster91 ◴[] No.45292634[source]
The problem is, what Congress can do, Congress and the Supreme Court can undo - and now you have a trove of pristine but already-surveyed land that can be exploited almost without risk.

It used to be unthinkable that the US government would outright cancel such things... with the current administration, legislation and justice system, it's not just not unthinkable but expected.

replies(1): >>45292728 #
1. ◴[] No.45292728[source]