Dakotakid
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2014
- Messages
- 919
Conservation easements are under attack nationally, and in Montana.
There is an odd twisted logic that “conserving” the entirety of an estate is supporting private property rights.
I have heard a conservative county commissioner say that the government should have never allowed the mineral estate to be severed from the surface estate. Because that violated future private property owners interests.
Now, the argument is for prohibiting conservation easements because it is necessary to protects future property owners private property rights. It is somewhat like the logic of a sovereign citizen- assert gibberish forcefully enough and people concede the debate.
Will 99 year leases have a negative effect on conservation? I think that is the direct intended purpose.
Does it mean the sky is falling? I don’t think so, if the gap can be bridged with private conservation.
But it just might be because I am inside the snow globe praying it doesn’t snow.
There is an odd twisted logic that “conserving” the entirety of an estate is supporting private property rights.
I have heard a conservative county commissioner say that the government should have never allowed the mineral estate to be severed from the surface estate. Because that violated future private property owners interests.
Now, the argument is for prohibiting conservation easements because it is necessary to protects future property owners private property rights. It is somewhat like the logic of a sovereign citizen- assert gibberish forcefully enough and people concede the debate.
Will 99 year leases have a negative effect on conservation? I think that is the direct intended purpose.
Does it mean the sky is falling? I don’t think so, if the gap can be bridged with private conservation.
But it just might be because I am inside the snow globe praying it doesn’t snow.
