[srschick]

I've heard much talk about "The Nature Conservancy".
Although I've heard much about their shenanegans, I don't quite understand what their purpose is.
Anyone care to fill me in?

(below is a snippit I found on www.illinoisleader.com)
Sounds really fishy to me.

_________________________________________________________
The Nature Conservancy (TNC) gave their President Mark McCormick a $1.55 million loan for a new house. McCormick makes $275,000 plus the usual health and retirement benefits. The Conservancy spends millions on its image - as do all the other green groups.


In fact, working for the Conservancy appears to be a very lucrative profession according to a series of articles published by the Washington Post. TNC provided numerous high dollar, low interest home loans to "their people" - all on your contributions to "save the environment." In the meantime, they are recipients of large amounts of government grant money.

[Art Eatman]

Generality: They buy land at fair market value, focussing on land with some sort of unique environmental features. They commonly donate it to some public agency, as the General Land Office of Texas, or the Texas Parks & Wildlife Department. Depending on size and location, it is often open to hunting, under permit.

Art

[Waitone]

TNC's public image is that of a reasonable enviro group. Its been able to snag some big endorsements from mainstream America.

However, stories are beginning to come out which show TNC to be no different that any other enviro group. The scam getting recent play is TNC and a federal agency tag team someone because they want the land for some enviro reason. Federales play the bad guy with the usual threats, intimidation, etc. After some time TNC drops by and plays the good guy. TNC will promise whatever the mark want to hear in an effort to get the mark to sell. Obviously, the property is worth much less than originally thought because of the threats of the federales. So TNC will purchase the property at a reduce price to to protect it.

Mark sells to TNC.

TNC takes property and donates it to the federal government at full market value.

TNC takes a deduction for the difference between its reduced purchase price and full value donaton.

TNC gets to reduce its taxable income. Federales get control of the property. The mark gets screwed. What's not to like?

Google around and I'm sure you can find other scams TNC run.

BTW, I used to donate to TNC before I learned of its tactics.

[Tropical Z]

This is very disturbing! Ive donated to TNC for years!!!

[bjengs]

Waitone is quite right. Harry Browne and other prominent Libs used to use them as an example of how private buyers could aid in conservation, but as soon as it came out that they were just giving the property to the gov't, it was just another example of the poison touch of government.

[JohnBT]

They're the biggest bunch of liars and scam artists around if what has come to light is true - and it looks like it is all true.

Here's the one story that galled me the most. They were drilling for gas under the last breeding grounds of the Attwater's Prairie Chicken. Funny name, sad story.

JT
___________________________________________________________

Group Nature Conservancy Accused of Drilling for Gas
Under Breeding Ground of Endangered Bird
Wilderness Bewilderment

OLIVER BURKEMAN / The Guardian Weekly (UK) 5jun03

WASHINGTON—The world's wealthiest green group may be investigated by the US government in the light of allegations that it has engaged in practices more commonly associated with the enemies of the environment.

Nature Conservancy felled trees, allegedly drilled for gas beneath the last breeding ground of an endangered bird and sold unspoilt land at discounted prices to its trustees so they could build luxury homes in some of America's most beautiful landscapes, according to the Washington Post, which spent two years investigating its activities.

The conservancy group has $3bn in assets and a million members, and is ubiquitous in the US. Its image as the preserver of the country's wilderness has been severely tarnished by the investigation.

The paper says the oil company Mobil gave the charity a stretch of coastline in Texas that supports the almost extinct Attwater's prairie chicken. But the Post claims that, instead of shielding the land, Nature Conservancy sank a gas well, losing a $10m lawsuit concerning another charity's claim to the oil rights, and exposing the birds, in the words of one of Nature Conservancy's scientists, to "a higher probability of death".

The revelations, confirmed by the Guardian, encompass a scheme in which the conservancy's wealthy supporters, among them the chat show host David Letterman, were sold land by the charity at far less than cost, in return for accepting restrictions on how they could develop it.

Those buying the land would often make up the difference with a roughly equivalent donation to the conservancy, claiming a large tax deduction for the gift, meaning that the US treasury sweetened the deal. The buyer was free to develop the land as long as the charity's environmental restrictions were followed. But they were often not strict enough to prevent the owner installing tennis courts and clearing trees for a better view.

Mr Letterman, a conservancy trustee, bought part of an 87-hectare stretch on Martha's Vineyard, though it was not clear whether he made a parallel donation.

The charity says it has suspended the "conservation buyer" scheme pending a review. But Democrat and Republican senators are seeking an investigation, bringing into the Washington spotlight a long-running debate on how close the green movement should get to big business.

Nature Conservancy is certainly very close. Among those with seats on its council are some of America's most notorious environmental offenders: Pacific Gas and Electric - the polluting anti-hero of the movie Erin Brockovich - Exxon Mobil and General Motors. It receives hundreds of millions of dollars a year from business, some for letting companies use its name and logo on products.

"Talking philosophically, there's a spectrum, and, yes, the conservancy is very pragmatic," Jordan Peavey, its spokeswoman, told the Guardian. The charity has admitted that it made mistakes, but, Ms Peavey said, "We have our niche, and we're very effective at what we do. That enables

us to get work done that groups like Greenpeace couldn't do - not to pick on them particularly, because they can do things that we couldn't."

A former head of land acquisition for Nature Conservancy, David Morine, told the Post: "It was the wrong decision to get so close to industry. Business got in under the tent, and we are the ones who invited them in. These corporate executives are carnivorous. You bring them in and they just take over. [That policy was] the biggest mistake in my life."

It is the Texas gas drilling that may do the most damage, because it seems so profoundly at odds with the charity's stated mission of "saving the last great places on Earth".

The plan was to buy more land for the Attwater's prairie chicken, which the US National Wildlife Federation calls the country's most endangered bird, but little went right. Oil spills and a gas explosion hurt the operation.

There is no evidence that the drilling directly harmed the birds, but the conservation efforts failed, too, and the number of birds has fallen from 36 in 1998 to an estimated 16.

Mark Hertsgaard, author of the book Earth odyssey, said: "I don't see how you could make up a worse scenario than that ... I think it tells you something about the lack of accountability in the movement, and the lack of an atmosphere in which people are going to call each other on things. It really points to a much bigger problem, which is, how do you deal with corporate power and capitalism."

As for the conservation buyer scheme, Ms Peavey insisted that it did not entail selling land to conservancy trustees and donors at a loss, because the development restrictions decreased the value.

"You're giving up substantial rights to develop, in perpetuity - owners hundreds of years from now will still have to abide by those restrictions;' she said. "So while it is true that the land was sold at a cheaper price, it was because it was worthless, by independent appraisals."

[Waitone]

I just googled "nature conservancy scams" and came up with


http://www.crowley-offroad.com/land_grabbing_secrets.htm



http://www.americanpolicy.org/prop/main.htm



http://216.239.57.104/search?q=cache:HFNtJ4k-Hk8J:www.parr1.com/PARRNewsletterVol5No1.pdf+nature+conservancy+scams&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[another okie]

The Nature Conservancy has a highly specific mission - preserve highly endangered habitat for endangered species. People who are suprised that they would drill for oil or whatever don't understand that they are not the Sierra Club and do not act like a typical "environmental" organization, whatever that is. They work closely with many business leaders. I'm sure they do a few insider deals now and then, but I suspect some of this is just hostility to enviromental movement in general. So what if some leaders bought homes in a subdivision created from land they received?

Was it critical habitat? They sell off non-critical land to keep their fund up. Did everyone have a chance to buy a home there? I bet they did.

The quality and believability of the conspiracy posts above may be tested by this simple example:

"TNC takes a deduction for the difference between its reduced purchase price and full value donaton. TNC gets to reduce its taxable income. "

The Nature Conservancy is a non-profit entity. It pays no taxes. It has no taxable income to reduce. If your conspiracy theory depends on such basic misstatements of fact (the only fact stated I can check), I think we may safely turn the page.

[Leatherneck]

Another OkieThe Nature Conservancy is a non-profit entity. It pays no taxes. It has no taxable income to reduce.

While literally true as you point out, I believe TNC's tax-exempt status depends on actually showing no profit. Thus they can spend exorbitant sums as "overhead" (like interest-free loans to insiders) and get away with declaring no "profit." Sounds to me like the inside gang of enviros have ensured themselves a sweet deal while conducting some arguably good preservation work. What's new? :scrutiny:

TC
TFL Survivor

[hammer4nc]

To elaborate on leatherneck's point, a big factor in these enviro non-proft orgs is political contributions. Sometimes even establishing mirror pac orginations to funnel money through. In return, they get sweetheart legislation (park designations, highly PROFITABLE govt. land buybacks) to further their interests. NO quid pro quo, however (yeah, right!). Okie's mission summary leaves out key details. Being a non-profit doesn't mean you can't make a profit, it only means you can't redistribute profits to shareholders. Contributions, loans, gifts, etc., no problem.

[JohnBT]

They're acting like they got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. JT

From the front page of The Nature Conservancy site:

Summary of Outcomes

In May, The Nature Conservancy announced the suspension of certain activities until its next regularly-scheduled Board meeting on June 13, 2003. At that meeting, held today, the Board discussed changes to policies affecting the suspended activities, as well as its commitment to governance best practices.

As a result, a number of decisions were made today, including:

The Board prohibited buying or selling land in transactions with Board members, trustees and employees and their immediate families.

All charitable gifts associated with a conservation buyer transaction must be legally documented as part of the transaction.

The Conservancy will make no new loans to employees.

The Conservancy will not initiate new oil and gas drilling or mining of hard rock minerals on its preserves unless required by existing contracts.

The Board will enlist independent, outside advisors to assist it in achieving its aspiration of making the Conservancy a recognized leader in governance and oversight.

[another okie]

"While literally true as you point out, I believe TNC's tax-exempt status depends on actually showing no profit. "

Why do you believe that? Why don't you find out what the facts are? Consult the Internal Revenue code, which will tell you that non-profits can indeed have "excess revenues," which is to say profits.

If your test was applied, many American corporations would be non-profit, since they regularly lose money, at least from an accounting point of view. There is a difference between having no profits and being non-profit.

Non-profit means that no one involved profits from the operation (this does not mean they can't be paid salaries), and that the purpose of the organization is "organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literary or educational purpose or for the prevention of cruelty to children." IRC section 170 (c). The process for applying and the types of non-profits are covered in section 501.

Now if the Nature Conservancy is cutting insiders deals on land, they are indeed endangering their tax-exempt status, and their board better crack down immediately.

[RM]

I hope it is Ok to be anti gun control and still support environmental groups. (I like to be politically correct!)

[Art Eatman]

Drilling a gas well takes maybe an acre, plus the access road. After the Christmas Tree is in place and the mud pit is cleaned up, all that remains is the gravel lane and an underground pipeline.

The prairie chickens probably hop up onto the Christmas Tree to watch out for coyotes, since their preferred range is flat grassland country.

Art

[243_shooter]

Seems to me they convert large tracts of land to save some wealthy folks from paying their land tax while preserving their views at the same time. Sure, log it off, then we'll help you "preserve it". No taxes, no neighbors for you.

They recently built a large "office complex" in the middle of our (ONLY) residential block, tearing down several houses in the process, spending well over a million dollars, the builiding literally rests on 3 of the 4 property lines, and they refuse to pay land tax. I should go take some pics of the monstrosity so you can see how well it "blends" with the envrioment :barf: :barf:

Our town is already 90+% Adirondack Park Agency protected state land. It doesn't need their help to be "protected".

The best part is the SUV's they drive :what: :what: Nothing like seeing a Jeep Grand Cherokee with Nature Conservancy plastered all over it towing a 20 ft motor boat with a 70's vintage 150hp mercury outboard :)

Leo

[IM4RMEF]

TNC isn't all bad. Here is a rough example of how it might work. (My accountant can explain it...I can only try to explain it...I assume no liability for the information that follows!)

I want to purchase land near some subdivisions for hunting. I can't afford the price/acre.
The NC agrees that it would like to protect the land from development. I tell them where I would like to build a house and we agree on the land use (farming, plant trees, etc)and write up a use plan. I agree to give them a "donation" of around $2500 or a certain percentage. The land is placed in a conservation easement.
It is now worth less per acre (no subdivisions forever) so I have "donated" X dollars of the land's value. I can now take a tax deduction of that X amount at my tax rate..but I only have a few (3?)years to take the tax allowance. So..all else equal, the guy with the highest tax bracket will get the best deal. The land might not have been able to pay for itself (assuming farm) but now I can show my banker how I can make it work due to the tax deduction. (Maybe buy it with no or little money down) That house lot in the middle is now forever exclusive so it is worth much more than before which might offset the equity lost in giving up development rights on the rest of the ground. Names like Turner and Costner buy huge mountain tracts this way (How many of us are in their tax bracket?) But small time farmers and recreational enthusiasts can also utilize this method to compete with the land developers and less motivated but deep pocketed bidders.
Maybe Grandpa wants the family farm to remain a farm forever? Maybe the folks want to retire without wondering if they will be overtaken by urban sprawl? The high value and taxes caused by urban encroachment won't apply the same to this ground because it can't be developed beyond what is agreed upon in the use plan.
I don't think any conservation or "green" group is perfect, but I wouldn't consider the Nature Conservancy to be our enemy.

[Sergeant Bob]

Landing a Big One: Preservation, Private Development (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A17879-2003May5&notFound=true)

By David B. Ottaway and Joe Stephens
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, May 6, 2003; Page A09


MARTHA'S VINEYARD, Mass. -- Two years ago, the Nature Conservancy triumphantly announced a complex real estate transaction, a $64 million deal in which it acquired 215 acres of rare open sandplain. Conservancy officials hailed it as "an important victory for conservation on Martha's Vineyard," part of a campaign to save the Earth's "Last Great Places." [Related Web site.]

The Conservancy, known for buying and holding raw land in perpetuity, did not opt for 100 percent preservation in this case.

Instead, as part of the deal, the Conservancy placed restrictions limiting some development on the newly purchased land and then immediately resold half of it to others, paving the way for Gatsbyesque vacation houses on pristine beach and grasslands. Those buyers included a pair of Oracle software tycoons, a retired Goldman Sachs executive and comedian David Letterman.

"It's a Last Great Place for David Letterman," quipped former Conservancy executive David Morine, now one of its critics.

For their part, Conservancy officials defend the deal as one that preserved half the land and preempted denser development on the other half. [Related document.]

A closer look at the serpentine deal reveals another unexpected facet: the transaction hinged on an $18.5 million charitable gift made to the Conservancy two days before the closing, according to interviews with people involved in the purchase. The Conservancy used the gift to buy the land from business entities owned by the same family that donated the money. That series of transactions allows the family to seek an $18.5 million tax deduction, according to a family spokesman.

The gift would not be deductible under Internal Revenue Service rules if it were made with a binding restriction that it had to be used to complete the property deal. Conservancy officials said there was no restriction on the donation. They said the deal violated no IRS rules and represented a "use of tax incentives for conservation that served the public good."

However, a Conservancy lawyer, Hans P. Birle, said in a separate interview that the money was used to "close the gap" between the buyers and sellers.

How did the Nature Conservancy, once known as "nature's real estate agent," end up clearing a path for resort-sized houses on environmentally sensitive land in Martha's Vineyard? The convoluted story goes back more than a decade.

In 1990, Boston developers Neil W. and Monte J. Wallace approached officials on the island with a plan to rezone a historic oceanside property known as Herring Creek Farm in order to build 54 homes. When development-shy officials rebuffed the plan, the Wallaces challenged the decision in seven lawsuits. They lost every time.

In November 1999, Letterman's development company, MV Regency Group, offered to buy Herring Creek Farm. His agent promised limited building: six eco-friendly oceanside homes. More than half the property -- 115 acres -- would be donated to the Farming Agriculture and Resource Management Institute, a small local nonprofit, to create a farming demonstration project for children, an institute official said.

But the Letterman proposal languished because of strong local opposition to development on the site. The Cohan family, the original owners who sold to the Wallaces, could block the deal until 2010 because they had a first option to repurchase the land. The Cohans were opposed to "any further development at all," said Joseph Shea, a Cohan family attorney.

"We always wanted less rather than more development," Shea said yesterday.

In 2000, the Conservancy, which had a long-standing interest in the property, quietly made its own offer to the Wallaces. The Conservancy said it planned to keep and preserve half of the acreage and sell the rest to "conservation buyers" who would agree to development restrictions on the land. The Conservancy convinced the Cohans to go along with the deal, Conservancy officials said.

After the Conservancy expressed an interest, the Wallaces let it be known in the small island community that the respected environmental nonprofit organization was a potential buyer, according to Stuart R. Johnson, the Wallace family spokesman. With the Conservancy in the picture, the Wallaces were able to finally satisfy their desire to get a rezoning that would boost the value of their property. [Related document.]

Julia Wells, who covered the Herring Creek Farm saga for the Martha's Vineyard Gazette, said Johnson used the Conservancy's name to help sway votes on the zoning commission.

"Key people were told" on the commission that the Wallaces would not build on the property but instead intended to sell the land to the Conservancy, Wells said. "They did influence the vote that way." Said Johnson, "I might have said that in the final quarter of the process." But he said other factors influenced the vote as well, including a desire to end the long standoff.

Conservancy officials said they were unaware their organization's name was used by the Wallaces with the zoning commission and that "we did not, nor did we try to, have special influence over public officials."

The commission voted 7 to 6 to give the Wallaces permission to build 33 houses on the land. The rezoning boosted the property's estimated "fair market value" to $78 million, or $363,000 an acre, a considerable premium above the $64 million, or $298,000 an acre, that the Conservancy eventually offered.

This would allow the Wallaces to apply for a $14 million IRS deduction for the difference, under tax provisions allowing such deductions for "bargain sales" to charities.

Johnson said in an interview that the Wallaces viewed the deduction as a way "to soften the pain of taxes" and the "linchpin" to the deal.

With the rezoning in hand, a complicated transaction went forward -- so complicated that even some participants say they don't understand all of its aspects. It took nine months to close.

The $64 million purchase price was assembled from many pieces.

About $45 million came from a varied collection of buyers: the farming institute; retired Goldman Sachs executive Daniel W. Stanton and his wife, Mary; Oracle software company technology gurus Roger Bamford and Denise Lahey; and Letterman's MV Regency Group.

That left $18.5 million that the Conservancy needed to come up with to meet the Wallaces' $64 million purchase price.

On July 10, 2001, Real Estate Equities LP, a Wallace-owned company, donated a partial interest in another family partnership, known as Windsor at Hauppauge LP, to the Wallace Foundation, whose trustees are the Wallace brothers. The interest was valued at $18.5 million. [Related document.]

On July 18, 2001, the foundation gave $18.5 million to the Conservancy. Two days later, the Conservancy placed $64 million in escrow for the purchase.

Conservancy officials and Johnson initially said that one key to the deal was the $18.5 million donation. Johnson referred to it as "the gift part" of the transaction.

Later, Conservancy officials denied the gift was tied to the purchase. They said the Wallace Foundation developed its tax strategy with no consultation with the Conservancy.

"We needed to find $18 million somewhere," Conservancy officials said in a statement, "but the funds could have come from anyone interested in conservation on Martha's Vineyard."

Mike Dennis, the Conservancy's general counsel, said there was never a "legal obligation" for his organization to use the $18.5 million to purchase the farm.

"It's a huge distinction," he said. "Because if you do it one way, it's allowable, acceptable and done all the time. If you do it the other way, you've violated the law."

A 1972 IRS ruling states that for a contribution to be allowed as a tax-deductible gift, "there can be no expectation of procuring a commensurate financial benefit in return." The IRS has additional provisions regulating gifts from family foundations to prevent self-dealing by their members, such as the use of charitable donations to benefit themselves.

In the end, the Conservancy, the Wallaces and the private buyers all emerged as winners. In addition to the $64 million sale price, the Wallaces gained $32 million in tax breaks.

The Conservancy ended up with 102 acres of what it terms the most "ecologically important parcels" of the land, which it plans to restore. The organization also got a choice lot worth several million dollars earmarked for development of a luxury home.

"It's a real victory," said Conservancy President Steven J. McCormick. "Only 1 percent of sandplain grasslands ecosystem remains in the world."

Wallace family spokesman Johnson hailed the $18.5 million donation as "probably the biggest gift in the history of the Commonwealth and for sure in the history of Martha's Vineyard." A Conservancy ad published in the Wall Street Journal last May saluted the Wallaces as among seven top donors to its "Last Great Places" campaign.

Letterman acquired one of the old Wallace homes, a sprawling, 4,750-square-foot structure on 24 acres looking out on the Edgartown Great Pond. It is a short walk to a private ocean beach bordered by grasslands that are home to osprey, short-eared owls and piping plover.

Early last year, Stanton began bulldozing for a $14 million mansion that soon resembled a high-end resort.

Five others are planned.



© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[only1asterisk]

TNC is just a front to gobble up land in the name of green, and if you don't think they are hiding profits, you probably think Jesse Jackson is clean and Al Sharpton is man of God.


David

[H Romberg]

This sounds like the standard .org tactic. the American Cancer Society, March of Dimes and a host of other ones do it too. Its the nature of the beast. The Feds don't monitor non-p[rofits well, because they are wll paid in the form of campaign contributions. Donors don't monitor non-profits well, because people don't want to believe their charitable dollars are being misspent. Unfortunately, like all other self-interested normal people, unmonitored agents will tend to act consistently in their own interests, rather than fulfilling their obligations.

The deal works like this:

There's a problem that people want solved. (environmental conservancy issues)

Maintaining land is expensive for TNC, and isn't glamorous. Since Uncle Sam is better at managing everything than any greedy capitalist could ever be (at least that's the argument), they hand it over to the state for management, and focus on their core businesses of land acquisition and fund raising. Unfortunately, partnering with the mob so to speak, turns them into mobsters too. The result is a "Land Legacy that looks great on paper and sells well, but has crappy management and relies on the threat of force to induce people to sell at deflated prices. In the end, whoever puts the most $$ in the coffers of the committee chair in charge of that land gets permission to do whatever he wants to it. ANWR is a great example of this in action.

TNC gets to point out more environmental problems and ask for $$ to "protect" more land.

Regulators get kickbacks as campaign contributions.

Industrialists get access to "protected" lands.

Environment gets screwed.

Taxpayers pay through the nose to clean it all up donate to TNC, and ask for more because the system isn't working fast enough.

Note: What event nearly bankrupted the March of Dimes? Answer: Polio was cured, thus depriving them of a reason for existing till they found a new disease.

Few well established organizations will ever act to eliminate their own sources of funding, so the problems the solve need to be maintained, while also maintaining the impression that progress is being made. Look at the drug war for a wonderful example. The NRA is another.

[Art Eatman]

I'm not disagreeing with folks' opinions of what the Nature Conservancy has apparently become. Sounds like you can find crooks anywhere, be it NC or Enron.

The reasoning behind acquisition to preserve certain tracts, however, began as a way to avoid having prime habitat get subdivided and paved over. They have prevented a lot of exurban sprawl of "five acres, five miles from town". They have saved large tracts of prime hunting and fishing areas from development.

As an example of what happens without such an organization, drive I-25 through Colorado. The sprawling development in the foothills of the Rockies is right in the winter range of the elk. The amount of available winter feed is reduced--as are the numbers of elk. (Naturally, to those residents, the reduced numbers are the fault of all those nasty hunters. Loss of habitat? What do you mean by that?)

Art

[IM4RMEF]

H Romberg-
What you are stating may be correct in some cases (public land) but...I'm not sure if you understand the "land use" contract. If I utilize TNC for a conservation easement (private property) I can still have total control over the land. No one else can trespass or use it without my permisssion (unless I have stated otherwise in the agreement). I only have to consent to an annual drive by or walk through to insure that I haven't started a subdivision or started draining wetlands, etc. in violation of the agreement.

An average Joe can indeed benefit from groups such as the NC while simultaneously enhancing the environment and hunting/recreational opportunities. In many cases, certain uses of the land are donated, not the land ownership.

I don't know enough about the public government controlled land to pass judgement. (I'll just assume that there is good and bad in equal doses)

[Malone LaVeigh]

On the Forest I work on, there's a big tract of private inholding that has been owned by at least 3 timber companies that I know of. Each has logged off as much as they could before they sold it to the next. Some of it is pretty hammered, but some looks pretty good for land that has been very intensively managed for many years. Well, the most recent owner is now bankrupt and it's for sale again. An entity much like TNC is negotiating with the owner and the FS to buy it and hand it over to the FS. I assume if it becomes FS property it will be managed mostly in our timber matrix for multiple use, including eventual timber harvest. But there will be, IMO, several advantages.

* Timber management will be less intense, and other resources like watershed and wildlife will have a place at the table;

* We can get rid of a lot of duplicate roads;

* It will be open to the public (including me) for hunting;

* No one will ever be able to put up summer vacation cabins or other forms of development;

* 25% of timber receipts will go to the counties for schools and roads.

The advantage of having a nonprofit do the purchase is they can get in and buy the land while it's on the market before we could even get the environmental assessment up to speed. they're a lot more efficient than we are for that, though we will have to do a lot of regulatory work eventually. But they can take advantage of the market situeation while it exists.

All that being said, any organization, public, private, or nonprofit, is at risk from corruption. It needs to be watched out for and punished wherever it exists.