"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 19:50:31 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message
news:FQ8Ub.19239$u_6.9131@lakeread04...

Here is an alternative, though risky alternative. The covenants of the
will/bequest are very powerful. (See my reply to Larry.) Form a
non-profit community organization. Find some heirs to the estate and
feel them out about contesting the city's right of posession and
donating the land to the organization. I believe that when they donate
the land they get a tax deduction equal to the current value of the
land
less the value of the original bequest.

He may also want to contact the Nature Conservancy, which acquires land
that's about to be made ugly in various ways. They often find ways to
lock
it up legally so it REALLY can't be used for disgusting purposes, like
tree-less housing developments.

www.nature.org

They may already have their eye on the specific land anyway - it's worth
making inquiries.

Good advice, but be very carefull with these folks - they can be a
real handfull to deal with.

You mean the Nature Conservancy?

On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 21:00:28 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 19:50:31 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message
news:FQ8Ub.19239$u_6.9131@lakeread04...

Here is an alternative, though risky alternative. The covenants of the
will/bequest are very powerful. (See my reply to Larry.) Form a
non-profit community organization. Find some heirs to the estate and
feel them out about contesting the city's right of posession and
donating the land to the organization. I believe that when they donate
the land they get a tax deduction equal to the current value of the
land
less the value of the original bequest.

He may also want to contact the Nature Conservancy, which acquires land
that's about to be made ugly in various ways. They often find ways to
lock
it up legally so it REALLY can't be used for disgusting purposes, like
tree-less housing developments.

www.nature.org

They may already have their eye on the specific land anyway - it's worth
making inquiries.

Good advice, but be very carefull with these folks - they can be a
real handfull to deal with.

You mean the Nature Conservancy?

Yep - it's a long story - basically, I wanted to put my forest and
meadow property in a long term trust agreement, but the language in
the agreement was such that I would have lost access to my own land
while I was still alive and kicking.

I'm not saying they don't do good work and maybe it was just the folks
I was dealing with, but I never went back to them after that.

I worked an open land deal with the state instead.

Later,

Tom
S. Woodstock, CT
----------

"I thought I'd just go fishin', but the fish
were not amused. And I caught myself just
wishin' that I was in the fishes shoes. Just
swimmin' in some deep blue water not a care
in my head, watchin' some fool with a line
and a pole hidin' by the riverbed."

Joe Ely, "Back To My Old Molehill" - "Flatlanders,
Wheels of Fortune - 2004"

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

Good advice, but be very carefull with these folks - they can be a
real handfull to deal with.

You mean the Nature Conservancy?

Yep - it's a long story - basically, I wanted to put my forest and
meadow property in a long term trust agreement, but the language in
the agreement was such that I would have lost access to my own land
while I was still alive and kicking.

I'm not saying they don't do good work and maybe it was just the folks
I was dealing with, but I never went back to them after that.

I worked an open land deal with the state instead.

Well, they sometimes have to deal with some heavy hitters. Maybe they don't
adjust their procedures for normal people sometimes.

I wish I recalled the name of the book I read, about shore erosion and
overdevelopment. They described a place in NJ where the town wanted to sell
a huge chunk of beach/wetland, but would only sell to developers. They
didn't put this in writing. Rather, they simply refused to meet with anyone
who didn't bill themselves as a developer. If I recall, the town was hoping
for a hotel or something. Nature Conservancy set up a dummy corporation and
did whatever was necessary to complete the ruse. They snookered the town
board, bought the land, took off their masks and said "Hah!". The legal
wrapper they created was pretty much bulletproof.

On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 21:55:40 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .

Good advice, but be very carefull with these folks - they can be a
real handfull to deal with.

You mean the Nature Conservancy?

Yep - it's a long story - basically, I wanted to put my forest and
meadow property in a long term trust agreement, but the language in
the agreement was such that I would have lost access to my own land
while I was still alive and kicking.

I'm not saying they don't do good work and maybe it was just the folks
I was dealing with, but I never went back to them after that.

I worked an open land deal with the state instead.

Well, they sometimes have to deal with some heavy hitters. Maybe they don't
adjust their procedures for normal people sometimes.

I wish I recalled the name of the book I read, about shore erosion and
overdevelopment. They described a place in NJ where the town wanted to sell
a huge chunk of beach/wetland, but would only sell to developers. They
didn't put this in writing. Rather, they simply refused to meet with anyone
who didn't bill themselves as a developer. If I recall, the town was hoping
for a hotel or something. Nature Conservancy set up a dummy corporation and
did whatever was necessary to complete the ruse. They snookered the town
board, bought the land, took off their masks and said "Hah!". The legal
wrapper they created was pretty much bulletproof.

Heh - sneaky little devils. :)

Later,

Tom
S. Woodstock, CT
----------

"I thought I'd just go fishin', but the fish
were not amused. And I caught myself just
wishin' that I was in the fishes shoes. Just
swimmin' in some deep blue water not a care
in my head, watchin' some fool with a line
and a pole hidin' by the riverbed."

Joe Ely, "Back To My Old Molehill" - "Flatlanders,
Wheels of Fortune - 2004"

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote in message . ..
On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 21:00:28 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 19:50:31 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message
news:FQ8Ub.19239$u_6.9131@lakeread04...

Here is an alternative, though risky alternative. The covenants of the
will/bequest are very powerful. (See my reply to Larry.) Form a
non-profit community organization. Find some heirs to the estate and
feel them out about contesting the city's right of posession and
donating the land to the organization. I believe that when they donate
the land they get a tax deduction equal to the current value of the
land
less the value of the original bequest.

He may also want to contact the Nature Conservancy, which acquires land
that's about to be made ugly in various ways. They often find ways to
lock
it up legally so it REALLY can't be used for disgusting purposes, like
tree-less housing developments.

www.nature.org

They may already have their eye on the specific land anyway - it's worth
making inquiries.

Good advice, but be very carefull with these folks - they can be a
real handfull to deal with.

You mean the Nature Conservancy?

Yep - it's a long story - basically, I wanted to put my forest and
meadow property in a long term trust agreement, but the language in
the agreement was such that I would have lost access to my own land
while I was still alive and kicking.

I'm not saying they don't do good work and maybe it was just the folks
I was dealing with, but I never went back to them after that.

I worked an open land deal with the state instead.

I worked with an organization that was a lot like the nature
conservancy (only smaller) on a project to remediate a telecom site we
had in a state park. During the project, they were talking about
trying to work a deal with a local archery club that owned some
adjacent property. The club wouldn't sell the land, but the
conservation group talked about getting a "conservation easement" ( I
think that was the term ).

The organization would not buy the land, but pay the archery club to
agree not to do anything else to the land for the term of easement.
They could still use the land, but the easement meant the club
couldn't do ANYTHING to it - it even put limits on the future
maintenance of some improvements the club had already made. This was
several years ago and it didn't look like such a deal was even close -
I don't know what has happened since.

On 5 Feb 2004 10:53:30 -0800, (Curtis CCR)
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote in message . ..
On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 21:00:28 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 19:50:31 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message
news:FQ8Ub.19239$u_6.9131@lakeread04...

Here is an alternative, though risky alternative. The covenants of the
will/bequest are very powerful. (See my reply to Larry.) Form a
non-profit community organization. Find some heirs to the estate and
feel them out about contesting the city's right of posession and
donating the land to the organization. I believe that when they donate
the land they get a tax deduction equal to the current value of the
land
less the value of the original bequest.

He may also want to contact the Nature Conservancy, which acquires land
that's about to be made ugly in various ways. They often find ways to
lock
it up legally so it REALLY can't be used for disgusting purposes, like
tree-less housing developments.

www.nature.org

They may already have their eye on the specific land anyway - it's worth
making inquiries.

Good advice, but be very carefull with these folks - they can be a
real handfull to deal with.

You mean the Nature Conservancy?

Yep - it's a long story - basically, I wanted to put my forest and
meadow property in a long term trust agreement, but the language in
the agreement was such that I would have lost access to my own land
while I was still alive and kicking.

I'm not saying they don't do good work and maybe it was just the folks
I was dealing with, but I never went back to them after that.

I worked an open land deal with the state instead.

I worked with an organization that was a lot like the nature
conservancy (only smaller) on a project to remediate a telecom site we
had in a state park. During the project, they were talking about
trying to work a deal with a local archery club that owned some
adjacent property. The club wouldn't sell the land, but the
conservation group talked about getting a "conservation easement" ( I
think that was the term ).

The organization would not buy the land, but pay the archery club to
agree not to do anything else to the land for the term of easement.
They could still use the land, but the easement meant the club
couldn't do ANYTHING to it - it even put limits on the future
maintenance of some improvements the club had already made. This was
several years ago and it didn't look like such a deal was even close -
I don't know what has happened since.

That's pretty much what happened to me with the caveat that the land
was to have "restricted access" - I asked what "restricted" meant and
it was pretty drastic even to the point of I couldn't hunt on my own
land or fish in my own pond.

Sorry - that dog won't howl.

Later,

Tom
S. Woodstock, CT
----------

"To the fisherman born there is nothing
so provoking of curiosity as a fishing rod
in a case."

Roland Pertwee, "The River God" (1928)

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On 5 Feb 2004 10:53:30 -0800, (Curtis CCR)
wrote:

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote in
message . ..
On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 21:00:28 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in
message
.. .
On Wed, 04 Feb 2004 19:50:31 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Glenn Ashmore" wrote in message
news:FQ8Ub.19239$u_6.9131@lakeread04...

Here is an alternative, though risky alternative. The covenants
of the
will/bequest are very powerful. (See my reply to Larry.) Form a
non-profit community organization. Find some heirs to the estate
and
feel them out about contesting the city's right of posession and
donating the land to the organization. I believe that when they
donate
the land they get a tax deduction equal to the current value of
the
land
less the value of the original bequest.

He may also want to contact the Nature Conservancy, which acquires
land
that's about to be made ugly in various ways. They often find ways
to
lock
it up legally so it REALLY can't be used for disgusting purposes,
like
tree-less housing developments.

www.nature.org

They may already have their eye on the specific land anyway - it's
worth
making inquiries.

Good advice, but be very carefull with these folks - they can be a
real handfull to deal with.

You mean the Nature Conservancy?

Yep - it's a long story - basically, I wanted to put my forest and
meadow property in a long term trust agreement, but the language in
the agreement was such that I would have lost access to my own land
while I was still alive and kicking.

I'm not saying they don't do good work and maybe it was just the folks
I was dealing with, but I never went back to them after that.

I worked an open land deal with the state instead.

I worked with an organization that was a lot like the nature
conservancy (only smaller) on a project to remediate a telecom site we
had in a state park. During the project, they were talking about
trying to work a deal with a local archery club that owned some
adjacent property. The club wouldn't sell the land, but the
conservation group talked about getting a "conservation easement" ( I
think that was the term ).

The organization would not buy the land, but pay the archery club to
agree not to do anything else to the land for the term of easement.
They could still use the land, but the easement meant the club
couldn't do ANYTHING to it - it even put limits on the future
maintenance of some improvements the club had already made. This was
several years ago and it didn't look like such a deal was even close -
I don't know what has happened since.

That's pretty much what happened to me with the caveat that the land
was to have "restricted access" - I asked what "restricted" meant and
it was pretty drastic even to the point of I couldn't hunt on my own
land or fish in my own pond.

Sorry - that dog won't howl.

Later,

Tom
S. Woodstock, CT
----------

"To the fisherman born there is nothing
so provoking of curiosity as a fishing rod
in a case."

Roland Pertwee, "The River God" (1928)

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...

That's pretty much what happened to me with the caveat that the land
was to have "restricted access" - I asked what "restricted" meant and
it was pretty drastic even to the point of I couldn't hunt on my own
land or fish in my own pond.

Sorry - that dog won't howl.

Who would enforce that? :-) Do they send spies?

On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 23:13:18 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .

That's pretty much what happened to me with the caveat that the land
was to have "restricted access" - I asked what "restricted" meant and
it was pretty drastic even to the point of I couldn't hunt on my own
land or fish in my own pond.

Sorry - that dog won't howl.

Who would enforce that? :-) Do they send spies?

I live in a small rural town - that should give you an idea. :)

Later,

Tom
S. Woodstock, CT
----------

"To the fisherman born there is nothing
so provoking of curiosity as a fishing rod
in a case."

Roland Pertwee, "The River God" (1928)

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 05 Feb 2004 23:13:18 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in
message
.. .

That's pretty much what happened to me with the caveat that the land
was to have "restricted access" - I asked what "restricted" meant and
it was pretty drastic even to the point of I couldn't hunt on my own
land or fish in my own pond.

Sorry - that dog won't howl.

Who would enforce that? :-) Do they send spies?

I live in a small rural town - that should give you an idea. :)


Great. Sounds like your neighbors would turn you in for ****ing on one of
your own trees. :-)

A friend of mine has 200 acres outside of Rochester. Sometimes we shoot guns
there. He's personally acquainted with two cops who sometimes pull over in
their patrol cars to shoot the breeze for a few minutes. Because he and his
wife like to hike & XC-ski on the land, they don't want hunters using it.
When neighbors asked about the visits from the cops, he told them it had
something to do with him not being careful of the direction in which he was
shooting his guns. He asked the cops to back up the story in case anyone
asked. Word got around. No more hunters. What a coincidence. In fact, he's
obsessive about gun safety, but his neighbors don't know that. :-)