Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Aristotle and the land debate

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by sp_nyp View Post
    This is obviously just speculation, but it seems like with a section of land that size, the taxes could be easily paid for with the timber they could harvest - as well as getting tax breaks for easements and such... no?
    Probably. I've never really gotten the impression that the TNC is in the business of Forest Management themselves. I'd assume (and this is a completely uneducated, unqualified assumption) that they'd have to contract the management and the harvesting of the land out to other companies.

    As for easements, again, you'd need to get the State involved, and this would involve a purchase of the development rights by the state (I doubt that the TNC would simply hand something as valuable as the development rights over, unless they had a good source of funding to do so).

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by chairrock View Post
      Are there Hunting Clubs on the land in question?
      If so, are the Hunting Clubs still paying rent?
      If so, isn't that rent going to the NC?
      Is the NC using the rent to pay the carrying costs?

      I am not familiar with the makeup of the former FP lands that the NC has not offloaded yet.
      If the money from hunting club leases is enough to cover taxes and fees for owning that land, why then don't more hunting clubs own land instead of lease it?

      Without any idea of the numbers involved, I would be very, very surprised if the income for hunting leases even began to cover the expenses of owning the land. I assume that's why so many hunting clubs lease land that is owned by timber companies, rather than purchase it outright.
      Last edited by DSettahr; 02-09-2011, 12:43 PM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by sp_nyp View Post
        This is obviously just speculation, but it seems like with a section of land that size, the taxes could be easily paid for with the timber they could harvest - as well as getting tax breaks for easements and such... no?
        Another thought that occurrs to me is that TNC, as a not-for-profit, probably does get tax breaks. This of course throws a whole new set of obstacles into having the TNC harvest and sell the timber... obstacles that TNC might not want to deal with.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by DSettahr View Post
          If the money from hunting club leases is enough to cover taxes and fees for owning that land, why then don't more hunting clubs own land instead of lease it?.
          I suspect the main reason is the initial capital for purchasing large tracks of land. Paying the taxes on land is typically a much smaller burden.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by DSettahr View Post
            Another thought that occurrs to me is that TNC, as a not-for-profit, probably does get tax breaks. This of course throws a whole new set of obstacles into having the TNC harvest and sell the timber... obstacles that TNC might not want to deal with.
            I wonder if they could harvest timber to a point where they break even with their costs invested in the land... and then donate to the state.

            Comment


            • #21
              My impression was that they basically "unbundle" the asset. Look at a property as having several income/value streams; a conservation easement worth X, a stream of camp revenue worth Y, a timber cruise worth Z. Logging company might not care about the first two income streams, it's not their line of business. The State sees value in the conservation easement, but allowing sustainable forestry might be a compatible use and will keep something on the local tax rolls. The camp rentals provides some cash while they are winding down the breakup, but are probably not compatible with the recreational/conservation easement plans. Hopefully, the TNC can realize more than the purchase price by selling off the separate income streams. Basically, they hope the land can realize more by selling the individual parts than a purchaser of the whole would be willing to pay. They probably would not cut the timber themselves, it's not their line of business, somewhat inconsistent with their donors and mission, it's risky business, and the timber is still growing while they await the sale to someone who can harvest it more efficiently. Foresting it themselves would only happen over time and they would still have to "carry" that portion of the price, rather than "cash out" to someone who knows that business.
              Last edited by Paradox6; 02-09-2011, 03:25 PM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Paradox6 View Post
                It would seem to be more cost-efficient if a more locally-focused organization who could act as quickly and be able to close the deal, could cut the ultimate costs to the State. Right now, it looks like the TNC is the only game in town.
                It doesn't seem that any other organization wants to fill the shoes of TNC. ADK is always soliciting money to fight the Marcellus Shale drilling in Allegheny and I am not sure if they really have the funds to do large or even medium-sized purchases. Adirondack Council and the rest of the orgs are more niche and probably have small donor rolls to have the cash or credit to buy the property.

                Regardless of TNC's global aspirations, they have brokered numerous ADK transactions and I believe still have a building in Keene Valley which serves as their local outpost. They are clearly committed to the ADKs and their global leanings are not necessarily bad things as with global donors comes more of an ability to weather the costs of the State dawdling on purchasing the land.

                I think TNC is the only game and will continue to be unless Bill Gates gets into the preservation game.
                Yo Rondeau!
                (Polish phrase said after every hike meaning "nice driveway" regarding the path just taken)
                http://www.eastwesthike.com

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by UpstateIrish View Post
                  I think TNC is the only game and will continue to be unless Bill Gates gets into the preservation game.
                  Hope I didn't create impression that I thought they were doing anything wrong because I don't believe that and I do fully support the purchases.

                  Just a pet peeve when I see not-for-profits somehow not subject to the same disclosure rules that apply to publicly traded corporations. This is an enterprise with almost $2 billion in assets, almost $1 billion in 2010 revenues, which includes $138 million in public grant money, $393 million in dues and donations from the public, and $293 million in land sale income, a portion of which is presumably from public funds. While the rules may not require the disclosure, why not lay the information out in the open and remove all doubt. A little sunlight is a good disinfectant.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    My understanding is that TNC loses money each year it holds onto the property, because of its "carrying costs"--taxes, interest on its loans, land management, etc. As a nonprofit, TNC is not obligated to pay taxes, but it does so for goodwill. I wonder if it will be inclined to change this policy if the towns block the sale to the state.
                    Adirondack Explorer
                    www.adirondackexplorer.org

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by adkeditor View Post
                      My understanding is that TNC loses money each year it holds onto the property, because of its "carrying costs"--taxes, interest on its loans, land management, etc. As a nonprofit, TNC is not obligated to pay taxes, but it does so for goodwill. I wonder if it will be inclined to change this policy if the towns block the sale to the state.
                      They incur additional expense with time. Does not appear they are losing money, they just might not make as much as they hoped on a deal, if the deal gets strung out. When someone suggests they are "losing money," that carries some panicky impressions and connotations that are not borne out by their annual report.

                      Not-for-profits do pay federal income taxes on income from activities unrelated to their primary, tax-exempt purpose, and I'm sure the precise definition of that is probably the subject of several thousand pages of IRS regulations. This may be the primary reason they do not get into the logging business, as they can lose their tax-exempt status if the unrelated business activity becomes more than just an incidental aspect of their operation. Seems to make sense, you do not want to set up non-taxpaying entities and then allow them to compete against taxpaying companies.

                      Not a bad nutshell: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...on-profit_laws
                      Last edited by Paradox6; 02-10-2011, 01:50 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by adkeditor View Post
                        My understanding is that TNC loses money each year it holds onto the property, because of its "carrying costs"--taxes, interest on its loans, land management, etc. As a nonprofit, TNC is not obligated to pay taxes, but it does so for goodwill. I wonder if it will be inclined to change this policy if the towns block the sale to the state.
                        "Losing money" is kind of an odd term to use when referring to the work of a non-profit.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          the nc seems to be have a lot of its own interior problems. the ceo makes a lot of salary for his position. he is deeply tied to Goldman Sachs being a past employee. why dose he need such a big salary 400 thousand plus. they have also been found allowing employee members to build private homes on nc property. their mailings are wasteful and many people who donate do not see their donations posted on their site. is this a strong arm attempt to push new york to purchase the land for nc benefit. scare people with development possibilities to gain support for the sale. of course if the donations are down salary increases need to come from somewhere. when money is donated for over seas projects pennies go for the cause and the rest is pr ,travel and accommodation's "comfortable accommodation's" . the state should offer them half of their asking price and if the nc is really their for the cause they will accept it and write the rest off on their taxes as a loss. Non for profit is the nc but the but the ceo and other employees are totally for profit. Lets get real they just want to protect their salaries. Don't tell me we are all about keeping and protecting lands ,water and forest. Then say if you don't want it we are going to sell to developers. Wake up there is much more than a land sale going on here. Are they just going to ship the sale money over seas ??

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            It seems to me many of the posts regarding this issue lean towards the opinion that since the NC is doing alot of good we should just jump in and buy
                            the land regardless of NYS fiscal constraints. "Too big to fail/Go under".
                            The NC took a chance on the purchase with the ASSUMPTION that the state would jump on it. Poor business decision in such times. Make no mistake, nonprofit or not, its run like a business. Now that they have it they're stuck with it and I don't think NYS should feel compelled in any way to rush to a purchase. 40dog I agree 100%. Low ball them and if they don't accept, let them choke on the trees. I don't want to see my taxes spent on ANY new land purchases.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              The Nature Conservancy. After a series of investigative reports by the Washington Post, Capitol Hill called for an investigation of the practices of The Nature Conservancy, which eventually led to the restructuring the of the organization's board.

                              Among the various items investigated by the Senate Finance Committee was the organization "allegedly selling land to trustees, making loans to employees, and receiving money from the sale of land to federal and state governments."[24]

                              Senator Grassley states in a letter to The Nature Conservancy, "People who donate property and dollars to help protect the environment deserve to know The Nature Conservancy won't betray them."[25] Some of the items for which he requested documentation pertained to a $1.55 million loan at 4.59 percent from the organization to the president and CEO Mr. McCormick as well as documentation regarding executive compensation, discretionary funds, and transactions with board members.

                              The investigation by the Senate Finance Committee prompted governance changes by The Nature Conservancy. These included implementing controls to prevent conflicts of interest and increasing the interaction between the board of trustees and management


                              These guys seem to really have the lands best interest at hand it makes me feel good they are so concerned with the environment and are offering all of us a good deal on forest land . I must have missed the public listing of donated lands for sale ha ha . Many people don't ever check out the group they are supporting . they say the the group is saving the environment but many are just completing their own agenda for themselves and friends . The people with the money have they power and thats the truth . The nc has all sorts of power people tied to them and the govt . they are for profit non for profit and they have found that oversea investment is much more profitable . if they cant strong arm in the USA then they will take govt money and ship it out of the USA then do what they want. Many paid members make a salary from the nc and also sit on other boards and groups which they get paid for bringing their yearly pay to close to a million a year . think about it?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                I guess what has to be acknowledged is that acquiring and preserving these lands in their natural form is always a losing business venture. And so it's no surprise when a conservation group goes under- they have to compete in a market where other people actually put land into use, for tourism, forestry, or however they want. The same is true of the government, they will either go broke or start selling the land or its resources off for profit. So the State buying up these lands doesn't really solve anything. Private individuals who care about the environment and the Adirondacks should be buying the land themselves. We can't force NYS taxpayers to enter into a losing business venture, and in fact it just takes away more of the power from us.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X