←back to thread

291 points mooreds | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.562s | 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 #
bix6 ◴[] No.45292704[source]
I go back and forth on this. I love the idea of preserving land but this also seems to be a way for the wealthy to insulate their home eg buy 10 acres next to your house and declare it undeveloped. Now you get an amazing property in a pristine zone that nobody can touch all while getting a tax break you don’t need and boxing out the next generation.
replies(5): >>45292778 #>>45293025 #>>45293245 #>>45294684 #>>45297746 #
1. mothballed ◴[] No.45292778[source]
It reminds me of all the desert shithole land I looked at that had covenants created by a dead boomer back in the 80s that require something ridiculous like "we will only allow a mansion to be built next to our pigfarm."

In theory it's possible to reverse but in practice it requires something like standing on one foot, holding your breath, and reciting the entire bible.

People desperately need housing and even in bum fuck nowhere where I live they are desperate to build a little homestead just so they can have something, and then you have this insanity with people creating covenants that basically have dead people in their graves reaching out to smite living people.

replies(2): >>45293316 #>>45295618 #
2. bix6 ◴[] No.45293316[source]
Yep this is my concern. They get the (desirable) land / homes and nobody else ever gets to live there.
3. achierius ◴[] No.45295618[source]
Isn't this (covenants that basically have dead people in their graves reaching out to smite living people) exactly what the dead hand rule was created to prevent? This was a major part of the "defeudalization" that took place between the 17th-19th centuries in most of western Europe, as before then the nobility would entail their estates so as to keep them whole in the senior male line. It does allow for limited postmortem control, but practically not more than one human lifespan thereafter.

C.f. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_against_perpetuities