May 2004     

Conservation Easement...

Another name for perpetuity?

By Clarice Ryan

Land trusts are tremendously innovative in developing ways to gain control of our land - our private property. They claim it is for the general good of the community, the wildlife, and the environment, when they are "protecting" your land from "you."

Actually, it is possible for each land owner to provide wildlife habitat without being paid to do so, while at the same time, keeping the land in productive use.

It is the monetary bait that appeals to the immediate gratification of current owners, with no conception of what it will do to their heirs or their children. The property owner is still saddled with on-going taxes and responsibilities for maintaining and insuring the property, with income limited in a dying farming industry. Conservation easements are the camel's nose under the tent, as it is the first step in sharing title to your land, and restricting your right of control over and use of your own property.

Tampering with private property, protected by our Constitution, is a matter of considerable magnitude. It is imperative that the citizens, and our county commissioners, seriously consider the ramifications of what they are doing before they make long-term, irreversible legal, and legislative decisions on this matter.

The $10 million conservation bond proposed by the Flathead Land Trust, is simply a means to compel the public to provide tax monies to buy out the property rights of their neighbors. We need to take a long hard look at all of the "what ifs" that the future may bring. Perpetuity is a long, long, time, if that is the term of the agreement, or even with time limits, will there be strings attached at the termination of the contract, or will we simply be financing the holding of property for speculative land value escalation?

We cannot allow the bond issue for funding conservation easements to get on the ballot, without having a concrete detailed proposal by Flathead Land Trust. There must also be adequate time for public review and hearing, before a decision as to whether or not, to put it on the ballot. There is the chance that, ultimately, the tax-paying public will be financing a land grab, and very restrictive control over the use and value of private lands, under the guise of protecting habitat and wildlife. We cannot risk a vote based primarily on sentiment and emotional appeal.

The largely-urban general public would have a tendency to vote against the small segment of our rural population who happen to own land. Even the land owners themselves frequently do not comprehend the ramifications of their decisions, and could very well vote contrary to their own best interests. Everyone involved would benefit from more information and education on this serious matter, which has such lasting consequences.

A complete proposal by Flathead Land Trust must detail the type of bond recommended, and provide answers to such questions as follow:

Will the easement be limited in time, such as 20 or 30 years, or will it be for perpetuity?

If limited, will the property revert back at that time to the owner, with no strings attached?

If the owner becomes delinquent is tax payments, and foreclosure is imminent, who acquires the property, the trust or the government?

If there is a bank loan on the property, how is that handled by the trust? (Incidentally, the owner will have trouble obtaining a bank loan against the property, as banks do not like to deal with easement properties. This is an important matter for the farming industry).

How will properties be selected for acquisition, and what pressures will be placed on owners to agree to an easement contract?

We often evaluate, and make decisions based upon current conditions only without consideration of possible changes. People now living on these farms, tend to be the elderly who have sentimental attachments to their way of life. Restricting their land to agriculture should not be practical to them personally, as they will probably not be farming into their 70s, 80s, and 90s.

Global competition, with increasing amounts of food product coming in from foreign countries, is virtually killing our farming industry. Those that survive will be the big managers, who can operate more efficiently. It is doubtful, that they will be interested in handling small isolated tracts that require movement of large equipment over heavily trafficked highways.

The young people, who will be the heirs to farm lands, will very likely have found employment in other fields and, frequently, in other states. Their affinity to the farm and rural way of life will have been lost. Yet, if their inherited properties are encumbered by a conservation easement, limiting its use to farming and wildlife habitat, and they are continuing to pay taxes and upkeep on it, in all likelihood, they will soon be searching for a way to dispose of it.

The population may be subject to severe recession, even depression, as even the economic future of our entire country is uncertain. There may be little, or no market, for restricted-use conservation easement land. It then will possibly be absorbed by the land trust, or a governmental agency such as the county.

Now, let's say we have a 20-year-term easement. Due to an increasing shortage of available property on the market, largely due to more easement lands, property values would very likely escalate, through supply and demand, and other taxpayers will be forced to make up the difference. They are even MORE likely to sell their land for development. The expired easement holder would then be free to sell, and would have, in essence, been paid by the taxpayers to hold his land for speculation. A good deal for him, bad investment for the taxpayers. And, what will then happen to the wildlife habitat?

How will properties be selected for acquisition by the trust? Using tax dollars to buy an easement is one way, which appeals to the immediate one-time-only financial interests of the present land owner. Also, property value immediately is reduced, causing a reduction in the taxes. This is monetary bait for current owners who do not comprehend the burden it puts on their heirs, usually their children.

Are there additional schemes planned to drive people into an easement contract, such as appealing to patriotism and personal involvement with saving the environment? This can, and should, be done as a general overall community effort through education and information. Even developers, mill owners, and many other industries are incorporating policies which address these concerns constructively. Private property owners can accomplish habitat preservation on their own, without the buy-out of their rights by a supposedly, non-profit agency. If done by these agencies in perpetuity, it should be considered a "taking," and property owners should be reimbursed at full market value for their land. They should be free of on-going expenses and responsibility for that land - such as taxes, weed control, building maintenance, and liability insurance for people having access to it.

Please, County Commissioners, I ask that the above matters be given careful thought. I hope that the decision will be made to not open the possibilities of merging the activities of a supposedly non-profit trust into the tax structure of the county, thereby committing all taxpayers to a concept which is so controversial, and an attack on the fundamental concept of property rights in America. I am fearful of it being put to a vote, because so few people comprehend the ramifications, and very likely will vote against the interests of the very few landowners that we have here in this county, and even, unknowingly, against their own interests.