My compliments to the authors for what certainly appears to be a very complete and accurate summary regarding Conservation Easements, the uses and abuses of them, and the desirability of them if/when they can be implemented for the benefit of all concerned. I have tried to keep abreast with current suggestions and complaints so I was not surprised when reading of the appraisal abuses that are now capturing national attention on a couple different fronts and certainly can threaten more than one aspect of future Easements.

However, where the current attention is being paid to appraisals in excess of what might be considered to be a true market value of the reduction of rights and uses of any parcel of land, thereby determining the dollar amount of any Easement given or sold, my own personal observation on more than one occasion had to do with the opposite end of that scenario: Conservation Easement appraisals that came in so far below what a land owner could derive from many other sources that the land owner rebelled and forgot about the idea of contriving such an Easement altogether. For many land owners their land is their major asset for themselves and their families and when this balance is so far askew those desires to preserve and protect, to restrict the future use and value of their land, comes under the heading of ludicrous and will never again even be considered by any land owner who is not a member of that wealthy set needing tax breaks in any amount to shelter other income.

The discussion within the Report regarding tax benefits was good, as was the mention of the fact that in at least some cases a land owner can sell those tax benefits to others with the income to benefit from them. However, the only market information I've heard recently regarding what those higher-income persons are paying the land owners to obtain those tax breaks seems to be in the neighborhood of 80% of the actual tax benefit they are buying.

That would seem to mean this avenue of financial reimbursement is also aimed at giving a whole big bunch of the dollar-benefit of the Easement to the wealthy who want the tax break at the expense of the land owner who would only be receiving 80%; a gain of 20% to the wealthy at the expense/loss of that 20% to the land owner.

All of these issues are of a major concern to many and are a giant stumbling stone in the pathway, preventing many from being willing to place a Conservation Easement of any kind on the land they own. This is particularly true for those who own land anywhere near an urban area.

The best news of all, of course, about any Conservation Easement bought or sold is the fact that it is not a "taking" of the land from the rightful owner of it. In the over-all State of The Union and those rights we have within it to own and use our private property the willing-buyer/willing-seller scenario is a marvelous thing and one that we must all strive to protect. To do otherwise is extremely self-destructive and a real theft from those who follow in our footsteps.

So it would certainly be my hope that in the near future some of these issues will be reconciled making the use of any Conservation Easement a real alternative for those who are not now able to use this tool to protect both the future of their land *&* the future of their families.

Money ain't everything and, as has been said by those much wiser than I, it does not buy happiness. But it does allow a person and/or a family to choose their own form of misery and can not be erased from a successful formula if there is to be one.

... or so it seems to me ...

Rose Mary

The vitality of rural communities and the survival of our rural culture and institutions depend on a strong resource-based economy; agriculture, mining, and timbering. Conservation Easements destroy resources and equity in land by transferring control to a land trust or government, with its sordid history of waste, mismanagement, corruption, and destructive policies. The basic principle of the conservation easement is pure, elitist arrogance. The idea that land can, and should, be preserved in perpetuity "for the benefit of future generations" is worse than folly. It is the highest form of conceit. The assumption is that the present generation has the wisdom, the right, and the duty to make decisions about the future use of land, and even is able to identify the land deserving preservation. This attitude ignores the reality of history; that cultural attitudes, scientific knowledge and nature change. The arrogance is founded in the belief that "we know all there is too know". It is the egocentric, spiritually bankrupt equivalent of the greed of the "Dead Hand" which seeks to control the future. Remember, the only "willing seller" is the original donor, after that, all bets are off.