<story><title>Apple co-founder sells Carmel Valley ranch, will become nature preserve</title><url>https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/06/18/apple-co-founder-to-sell-huge-carmel-valley-ranch-for-35-million-to-become-public-nature-preserve/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>yellow_lead</author><text>&amp;gt; The usual approach in the US is for the land conservation foundations to split up the ownership rights between two different local organizations in a way that prevents developing the land without agreement from both organizations.&lt;p&gt;Is it possible to instead write something in the terms of the donation preventing this? Maybe that would require larger action from the state, like a state congressional vote though.</text></item><item><author>ekidd</author><text>&amp;gt; &lt;i&gt;The article said that two former California governors threatened to sell public land to balance budgets so the private ownership seems to be a mitigation.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;This is a well-known concern in land preservation. There&amp;#x27;s apparently an offshore island near Maine that&amp;#x27;s too small and too far out to be of much use to humans, but it&amp;#x27;s an important migratory bird resting point.&lt;p&gt;IIRC, it was donated to the state once by conservationists (long ago), sold by the state, and then repurchased and preserved by a non-profit foundation. The state won&amp;#x27;t be getting it again!&lt;p&gt;The usual approach in the US is for the land conservation foundations to split up the ownership rights between two different local organizations in a way that prevents developing the land without agreement from both organizations.&lt;p&gt;As a general rule, most towns are happy with this setup. It provides them with public walking trails, and possibly areas for other outdoor sports. Many towns choose not to tax these lands, within reason.</text></item><item><author>kylehotchkiss</author><text>The article said that two former California governors threatened to sell public land to balance budgets so the private ownership seems to be a mitigation. Plus they can implement private security if needed, something that public land&amp;#x2F;parks occasionally are lacking.</text></item><item><author>smadge</author><text>Wait so California state granted $24 million to the private Wildlands Conservancy, who spent $35 million for the property. California should have just bought the property and turned it into a state park. This should be public land.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>radicalbyte</author><text>My football club in the UK has a lot of ground which is legally only allowed to be used for sporting purposes according to the will of the person who donated it. Not sure how it works but this is prime City-center land which remains green due to this.</text></comment>
<story><title>Apple co-founder sells Carmel Valley ranch, will become nature preserve</title><url>https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/06/18/apple-co-founder-to-sell-huge-carmel-valley-ranch-for-35-million-to-become-public-nature-preserve/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>yellow_lead</author><text>&amp;gt; The usual approach in the US is for the land conservation foundations to split up the ownership rights between two different local organizations in a way that prevents developing the land without agreement from both organizations.&lt;p&gt;Is it possible to instead write something in the terms of the donation preventing this? Maybe that would require larger action from the state, like a state congressional vote though.</text></item><item><author>ekidd</author><text>&amp;gt; &lt;i&gt;The article said that two former California governors threatened to sell public land to balance budgets so the private ownership seems to be a mitigation.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;This is a well-known concern in land preservation. There&amp;#x27;s apparently an offshore island near Maine that&amp;#x27;s too small and too far out to be of much use to humans, but it&amp;#x27;s an important migratory bird resting point.&lt;p&gt;IIRC, it was donated to the state once by conservationists (long ago), sold by the state, and then repurchased and preserved by a non-profit foundation. The state won&amp;#x27;t be getting it again!&lt;p&gt;The usual approach in the US is for the land conservation foundations to split up the ownership rights between two different local organizations in a way that prevents developing the land without agreement from both organizations.&lt;p&gt;As a general rule, most towns are happy with this setup. It provides them with public walking trails, and possibly areas for other outdoor sports. Many towns choose not to tax these lands, within reason.</text></item><item><author>kylehotchkiss</author><text>The article said that two former California governors threatened to sell public land to balance budgets so the private ownership seems to be a mitigation. Plus they can implement private security if needed, something that public land&amp;#x2F;parks occasionally are lacking.</text></item><item><author>smadge</author><text>Wait so California state granted $24 million to the private Wildlands Conservancy, who spent $35 million for the property. California should have just bought the property and turned it into a state park. This should be public land.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>tedunangst</author><text>Lots of charitable trusts find themselves under new management who has a new interpretation on what the real intentions of the founder were. And then there&amp;#x27;s a lawsuit, and then a judge rules that this or that interpretation is in the public interest, regardless of what anybody wanted.</text></comment>