Stafford Ferry CE
- Thread starter BigHornRam
- Start date
BuzzH
Well-known member
There's a real fuggin' shock.
this is ridiculous.
right now, you are allowed to look at the land you own and decide what to do with it right now, including but not limited to locking it up from development for 647 years and on.
if perpetuity is such an issue just be reminded that in 647 years if the american people decide that their laws and courts interpretation of them should be different, then they can decide and vote on changes to their laws and their courts and change the uses of that land.
but it doesn't matter, cause their ain't gonna be shit to hunt, eat, or drink in 647 years.
where the hell did 647 years come from anyway?
right now, you are allowed to look at the land you own and decide what to do with it right now, including but not limited to locking it up from development for 647 years and on.
if perpetuity is such an issue just be reminded that in 647 years if the american people decide that their laws and courts interpretation of them should be different, then they can decide and vote on changes to their laws and their courts and change the uses of that land.
but it doesn't matter, cause their ain't gonna be shit to hunt, eat, or drink in 647 years.
where the hell did 647 years come from anyway?
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 2,689
I dont see why this "perpetuity" is unique. Its selling part of the land and devalues the future value of the land. Like any other easement.
If one of these was to get reversed - what kind of return should the state/taxpayers get? If the CE was done in 1996 - the value of the same CE in 2024 is several times what it was then.
If one of these was to get reversed - what kind of return should the state/taxpayers get? If the CE was done in 1996 - the value of the same CE in 2024 is several times what it was then.
i'm hung up on why anyone is hung up on perpetuity.
a man or woman who decides their land should be passed to their children in my mind is no different than the CE 647 years from now.
shouldn't the people 647 years from now get a say in who should have ownership or what should happen to that land after the man or woman who owned it 647 years earlier passes? their great great great great great grandchildren have no rightful ownership of it! the owners 647 years ago say in things ended when they did!
That's not a compromise. One side loses every benefit for which they likely entered into a CE. I'll try to explain and illustrate why no property owner should "compromise" with an elected official on this point.
If state law prohibits these families from being allowed a perpetual CE, they get no value reduction for estate tax purposes on a term-certain easement. The reduction in value for estate tax purposes comes from the fact that at the time of death the land is absent any development rights, for perpetuity, thus reducing values a developer would pay and reducing the appraised value on Form 706 (Estate Tax Return).
IRC Sec 2031 - The fair market value is the price at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts.
No perpetuity - no restrictions on future use - no reduction for estate tax values on which the decedent must pay any estate taxes. That is the practical application when eliminating the right to do CEs in perpetuity.
From your posts, I don't think you want to impose that heavy estate tax burden on these families. I've not talked to anyone who promotes anti-perpetuity ideas who wants that outcome. Yet what anti-perpetuity folks are advocating for costs these families huge amounts of money in the practical application of the position they are promoting.
Just across Montana, removal of the perpetuity possibility for CEs is going to result in millions of additional income taxes and billions in additional estate taxes. Term easements or easements that terminate at death eliminate any income tax savings and any estate tax savings. That's a very unfair outcome for these land rich and cash poor families to get a huge tax bill to satisfy the ideological positions of those against CEs in perpetuity.
Point being, we can have these ideologies all we want. Yet, it is the other person who pays the costs for some imposing that ideology.
Again, that is not a compromise.
Addicting
Well-known member
Does that apply if the land is in a trust and no ownership changes?
Yes.
Hunting Wife
Well-known member
We are already forced to live with perpetual private property decisions every day. We watch private property owners choose to develop land constantly, and nobody bats an eye about the perpetual nature of a subdivision or an industrial park.
If the perpetual nature of private property rights is only acceptable for development, and never acceptable for conservation, the inevitable result is that we eventually will have nothing left to conserve.
If you don’t want to sign one, don’t. But other private property owners should have that option if they so choose.
I think the simple fact that people get so upset about perpetual easements limiting their ability to make a buck by developing property perfectly illustrates why these easements are so important.
So if it takes tearing an empire asunder through massive violence & jaunty pipers & drummers to stop perpetuity, perhaps it has more staying power than we think?
Addicting
Well-known member
I spent the evening doing some reading on this and specifically Montana law regarding it. I understand the tax advantages of it as best a lay person can.
However, I am still not in the perpetual boat. As someone who has had to be part of the decision to sell a large property due to land rich cash poor conditions. I grew up there and loved it, I wish my kids could have been part of it as well. A lot of blood, sweat, and tears were spent there. But in the end the best decision for everyone was to sell it. If it gets developed then so be it. I am just a blip in the timeline of that land. It is not up to me to dictate how it gets used in the future. I have no idea what the world will need in the distant future. I think it arrogant of us to force our will on future generations. I’ve been burnt with this in the past. Specifically 9 pages worth of deed restrictions from an over zealous previous owner. One who was so worried about development that he made impossible to do much anything on the property. Details down to what kind of animals you could own. To the point it’s all recorded and no one pays attention to it. Folks just go on living life and the rules are ignored by the new families that live there. But it takes one neighbor to complain and file suit and that whole thing will be a legal mess. That experience has shown me that it’s not for us to decide what happens for eternity here on earth when we are gone.
However, I am still not in the perpetual boat. As someone who has had to be part of the decision to sell a large property due to land rich cash poor conditions. I grew up there and loved it, I wish my kids could have been part of it as well. A lot of blood, sweat, and tears were spent there. But in the end the best decision for everyone was to sell it. If it gets developed then so be it. I am just a blip in the timeline of that land. It is not up to me to dictate how it gets used in the future. I have no idea what the world will need in the distant future. I think it arrogant of us to force our will on future generations. I’ve been burnt with this in the past. Specifically 9 pages worth of deed restrictions from an over zealous previous owner. One who was so worried about development that he made impossible to do much anything on the property. Details down to what kind of animals you could own. To the point it’s all recorded and no one pays attention to it. Folks just go on living life and the rules are ignored by the new families that live there. But it takes one neighbor to complain and file suit and that whole thing will be a legal mess. That experience has shown me that it’s not for us to decide what happens for eternity here on earth when we are gone.
4ohSick
Well-known member
It sounds like you forced your will on future generations of your family that could’ve grown up toiling on that same land. It’s an awfully socialist position that future generations of other families get to take priority over future generations of the current owner’s family.
I find it interesting that people worry about what a handful of owners could do with this land in 647 years but there's no mention of the thousands and thousands members of the public that would now have access to this land.
@Addicting I don't know if you're familiar with this area but there has been a HUGE influx of out of state money (likely people that rub elbows with the people wanting to stop this) that have bought up most of the available land. Parcels of land that are untouchable for the average person. Agreements like this keep a traditional family on the landscape while guaranteeing the average person access to some great country. If this doesn't go through, it will likely be sold to someone that doesn't care for people like you and me setting foot on their property and it will move us further away from 'the good old days'.
@Addicting I don't know if you're familiar with this area but there has been a HUGE influx of out of state money (likely people that rub elbows with the people wanting to stop this) that have bought up most of the available land. Parcels of land that are untouchable for the average person. Agreements like this keep a traditional family on the landscape while guaranteeing the average person access to some great country. If this doesn't go through, it will likely be sold to someone that doesn't care for people like you and me setting foot on their property and it will move us further away from 'the good old days'.
Dougfirtree
Well-known member
So, selling the farm so it can be subdivided and developed into 25 little suburban lots with houses on them and no green space or wildlife habitat is 'leaving things in the hands of future generations to decide', while putting a perpetual easement on it is forcing our will on future generations? That doesn't make sense to me. I understand the feeling that is driving your opinion. I have felt it myself and still do at times (and I work with CE's). But, used wisely, conservation easements allow us to conserve land that would be difficult to conserve in any other way and they are no more presumptive, or arrogant than any other "permanent" decision a landowner might make.
Deed restrictions are another ballgame. I don't care for them much, unless they're written in a way that ensures monitoring and enforcement. Otherwise, they're mostly meaningless. That's the situation yours was in. CE's are very different. They have to be held by a Land Trust, or State and be regularly monitored. It's a big financial commitment on their part and ensures that the document has real, practical meaning. It also ensures that the whole world isn't going to turn into one big conservation easement, which is a good thing.
Hunting Wife
Well-known member
I would argue that the best decision for you was to sell it. And that is perfectly acceptable…only you know your situation and values and all the other intangibles that go into making that decision.
But I think the point most of us are making is that everyone isn’t you. We all have our own set of situations and values that sometimes make a perpetual easement the right choice. I completely disagree when one subset of folks impose their own values and ideals on the rest of society to dictate what they may or may not do with their private property, especially while preaching private property rights from the rooftops. Sounds a little “private property rights for me, but not thee”, no?
If you (a general “you”, not directed at you specifically) don’t want to have private property encumbered by a perpetual easement, then don’t sign one, and don’t buy land encumbered by one. It’s all recorded, there’s no secret. Due diligence will ensure you have unfettered right to do as you please with your property. But I don’t think it’s too much to ask to afford all other landowners the same luxury.
WanderWoman
Well-known member
That’s odd. All they would have had to do is read the cover letter and EA, if that information hadn’t already been communicated to them.
WanderWoman
Well-known member
I bet the way things are going, the world will need clean air, clean water, open space, healthy soils, and good habitat. I think it’s arrogant of us to take a great legacy we’ve been given by stewards before us and completely squander it for short-term economic gain.
This is the exact opposite mantra that TR had when he set aside numerous public lands. This is kind of the opposite idea of what “conservation” is too. it is absolutely up to us to decide whether we leave future generations a great world or a miserable cesspit. We make that decision every day with our collective actions whether or not it’s intentional.
It’s fine if you don’t like CEs. As others have said don’t get one. I think a public comment along the lines of “I don’t like perpetual” regarding a CE is similar to a season-setting comment of “I don’t like bow hunters.” It’s a personal opinion, not a substantive objection. Said commenter doesn’t have to take part in that activity but their personal feelings shouldn’t prevent others from doing something that’s legal.
Last edited:
Addicting
Well-known member
They can do a CE, I have no issue with that. In fact I support them, just not in perpetuity. The world changes and evolves. No contract should be perpetual. There are other ways to deal with the immediate problem in front of our nose. Taxes are a in front of our nose problem when viewed from a forever timeline. The other options may not be popular or fun but where there is a will, there is a way.
I appreciate you being respectful in this conversation. We can disagree and still remain civil. However, I am bowing out. My feelings on perpetual has no bearing on county/governor/FWP decision made to not be a willing buyer.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
Those statements actually support the value of a perpetual easement, with whatever the provisions encumbered by the "someones" who are part of the decision. Even a perpetual CE may provide some subdivision of tracts, depending. You have good reason for strong feelings about that property, as well as regret that it's gone from your family.
Consider that if you were the one person who expended "a lot of blood, sweat, and tears" and personal income to acquire that property, would you not want to have all the rights afforded by law in deciding what happens with the property ... today, tomorrow, next year ... and after you're gone?!!!
