To that point, what about for profits buying up land and shutting down access? Weyerhaeuser is a dirty word in much of Oregon.
That's an interesting question.
I suspect that even though both for-profit and non-profit corporations are corporate entities organized under state laws for the purposes of pooling capital for a stated purpose, and both are subject to the same rules and regulations, we would all agree that one type, for-profit, is more accepted in a country where a profit motive is given a lot less scrutiny and critique than the one with a non-profit motive. That is a reality of our time.
A critical look of the two entity types show they are almost identical from a formation, pooling of capital, and governance perspective. And, the tax treatment of the two on for-profit activities are the same, with non-profit groups taxed at the highest corporate rates for any profits they make in a business endeavor. Most don't know that non-profits pay a tax on their business profits, normally called Unrelated Business Income (UBI) Tax.
Some say, "But, contributions to a non-profit organization are tax deductible." Yes, so long as there are no strings attached and you give up complete control of the amount contributed, that amount is tax deductible, subject to annual limits based on your adjusted gross income.
Contributions of capital to a for-profit corporation are also deductible, once you give up complete control of the asset by selling your interest or declaring it worthless. You get to deduct that contribution of capital to a for profit corporation when you sell it, not subject to any limits and with no regard to your adjusted gross income. It is merely a timing difference of when you get to deduct your capital contribution.
So, outside of the timing of when you can claim a deduction for your contribution of capital, the deductibility of your contribution of capital to a for-profit entity is treated much more favorably in the tax code than is your contribution of capital to a non-profit organization.
A bit of a tangent, I know, but I hear people say that "pooling of billionaire" money gives a non-profit corporation an advantage over others. Yes, an advantage over non-corporate buyers who don't pool capital resources, but no more advantage than what is provided when billionaires pool capital in for-profit corporations. And, for-profit corporations operating as active farms and ranches get a huge benefit under the tax code compared to for-profit corporations not meeting the rules of active farm or ranch activity.
So, to agree with your post quoted above and in alignment with my prior post about the billionaires buying ranches, there is no difference between billionaires pooling capital in non-profit corporations and billionaires pooling capital in for-profit corporations. Anyone claiming so does not understand corporate law, formation, governance, or taxation.
Further leading me to think this is less about concern for the startup rancher/farmer, a legitimate worry, more about dislike for one of the smaller buyers, APR.
www.nature.org
damned Mormons 
www.ft.com
