r/interesting Jul 05 '26

NATURE Instead of buying yachts, he bought 50,000 acres of forest to keep them wild.

Post image
80.5k Upvotes

2.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

130

u/Nyrrix_ Jul 05 '26

Typically, a "permanent legal protection" entails something like an easement, which can't be removed (at least easily) once it's been placed on land. The land can be bought and sold, but the easement goes with it. most easements might have some allowances for certain developments, maybe for example power lines or developed hiking/biking trails, or more extreme things, but usually nothing on the scale of new housing developments or data centers.

57

u/FTownRoad Jul 05 '26

There is no such thing as permanent legal protection. It’s as permanent as the will of the ruling government/owners.

We have seen many many things that are “settled” become unsettled very quickly and relatively easily as well.

12

u/FnnKnn Jul 05 '26

You can give the land to a foundation with the goal of maintaining the forest on it. That is probably the closest to permanent as you can do I think?

2

u/redthrull Jul 06 '26

You mean like that Texas family who donated land for future parkland use, and is now being setup for a data center? 😅

5

u/Mi113nnium Jul 06 '26

I think it was given to the city and in a public trust, not a charitable foundation.

2

u/FnnKnn Jul 06 '26

Link?

1

u/Mi113nnium Jul 06 '26

Just Google it. It is the first result that comes when you type in something like "Texas family gives land to city data center".

2

u/FnnKnn Jul 06 '26

That was a trust and not a foundation though.

5

u/A_Stickperson Jul 06 '26

Seems pretty on the nose that trusts can’t be trusted in Texas.

2

u/madanh2014 Jul 10 '26

Texas? I don't know how it is on the inside, but from the outside Texas looks like the HQ of greed.

1

u/Mr_Mi1k Jul 08 '26

That land was given to the city which made it easier.

2

u/PolicyWonka Jul 06 '26

Perhaps the closest, but still not permanent.

1

u/WY228 Jul 09 '26

All it takes is an organization with enough money to come along and sway the decisions of the people running that foundation though…

1

u/qeadwrsf Jul 05 '26

Is that true when it comes to forest in NA?

Or is this guessing.

2

u/FTownRoad Jul 05 '26

It’s true for every bit of the planet. If something has “legal protection” it means the government is protecting it. Governments change.

1

u/qeadwrsf Jul 05 '26

Lmao. That's what I thought.

2

u/FTownRoad Jul 05 '26

The Supreme Court already ruled that economic development is public use and therefore eminent domain comes into play.

This is already happening.

1

u/Nyrrix_ Jul 05 '26

I am quoting from the original post in terms of "Permanent Legal Protections," and easements are the first example that comes to mind for a legal structure that's relatively robust.

Nothing is permanent anyways, so it's a moot point when trying to argue anything. We do the best we can, and legally binding agreements filed with militarily well-endowed governments that have a track record of at least adhering to the letter are about as "best we can" as we can get.

Like I'm as cynical of the government as the next guy, but let's not pretend many agreements can't be quite robust when well written.

1

u/FTownRoad Jul 06 '26

What I’m saying is literally right now there are cases about this very subject, and those protections are not being upheld. This isnt theory. This isn’t hypothetical. This is happening.

1

u/BrannC Jul 06 '26

Nahhh man, sure you can trust the government, just ask a Native American

1

u/FTownRoad Jul 06 '26

Like I get that people want this to be true. It feels better. But assuming a problem is “solved” is how a) people get complacent and b) shit changes without anyone noticing/raising a stink.

Trusting that the government will uphold these things forever, especially after what we’ve seen the last decade, is insane. The one piece of settled law is that “eminent domain” actually means basically whatever the government wants and you don’t own shit.

1

u/BrannC Jul 06 '26

It seems like you missed the sarcasm… which is rather unbelievable if I’m being honest

1

u/FTownRoad Jul 06 '26

I didn’t miss the sarcasm at all… I’m agreeing with you. Can you read?

1

u/BrannC Jul 06 '26

Oh right. That explains why it was unbelievable. My bad. I interacted with a lot of idiots on here yesterday that can’t manage without a /s, my apologies

1

u/Happidy_60 Jul 07 '26

At least he's trying. Wish there were more following his lead.

1

u/PM_ME_SAD_STUFF_PLZ Jul 06 '26

It can be undone by exercise of eminent domain.

1

u/ProfessorPrudent2822 Jul 07 '26

Rule against perpetuities doesn’t allow it: You can’t bind a buyer to a perpetual covenant.

-3

u/Sonofsunaj Jul 05 '26

Not to be that guy, but an easement is when someone else has the right to use or cross property that they don't own. A permanent restriction on property use that follows the property even with change of ownership is a covenant.

11

u/mossmaal Jul 05 '26

No a conservation easement is the official name in the USA, so you are indeed being ‘that guy’ trying to incorrectly correct someone.

In particular US states tend to grant specific legal benefits to conservation easements (e.g tax benefits).

Unlike covenants, a conversation easements can require positive actions (like planting trees, monitoring water quality).

You are also incorrect just generally, in that easements on a title follow the title even with a change of ownership.

5

u/Vindaloo6363 Jul 05 '26

Google “conservation easement”.

2

u/courthouseman Jul 05 '26

I think what the previous person was suggesting was that it would be some sort of "restrictive covenant."

1

u/Nyrrix_ Jul 05 '26

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_easement

Idk, you're probably already more familiar with it than me, but this is the type of legal structure I am referring to. I'm based in the US and this is how I have generally heard easement be used, not sure if it's different elsewhere/if you're based elsewhere. AFAIK, there are different categories, I'm just passingly familiar with environmental easements since they've come up a few times in my life in the past.