Growing old tends to be characterized by increasing reluctance to change the way one thinks, acts or behaves; a body that is increasingly stiff, brittle, and sclerotic becomes prone to such ailments as broken hips, deafness and heart disease.
Societies, too, grow old and exhibit symptoms similar to those of aging persons. However, some societies - unlike individuals, whose death can be forecast within a modest margin of error by actuaries - can be rescued by outstanding leaders or transformed by untidy revolutions from within or hostile forces from without. So, what does growing old have to do with New England land trusts today and the landowning Catholic Church of fifteenth century England?
The extent to which a society is able to adjust the ownership and utilization of land and property is a powerful litmus test of its capacity for change without an untidy revolution. In a healthy society, ownership and utilization of land is always susceptible to change – to reflect underlying demographic pressures and technological change, and the economic forces which are set in motion by these two factors.
New York City - and the island of Manhattan in particular - is a prime example of a community which is able to reinvent itself almost continuously in response to demographic pressures and technological change. While each major initiative occasions considerable controversy and lawsuits, sometimes spread over an extended period, eventually a locale or neighborhood is transformed, whether by skyscrapers or immigrants or a major piece of infrastructure. Even when the original function of a major piece of land remains unchanged, such as Central Park, the City has been able, in effect, to restructure property rights and responsibilities in a way which revitalized the contribution of the land to the local community. In New York City’s case, it was through the transfer of park maintenance and development responsibilities to private nonprofit organizations.
The inability of a community or state to rejuvenate the way in which land is used, despite powerful demographic and technological forces pressing for change, is an indicator of political atherosclerosis. One of the chief sources of strength and vitality in the early Ottoman Empire was the practice whereby land grants made by the Sultan to worthy warriors and others were valid only for the lifetime of the recipient; when he died, title reverted to the Sultan and was duly reassigned to another worthy. The hard fought ability of landlords to "enclose" farmland for sheep raising in fifteenth century England, while imposing considerable hardship on tenant farmer who had previously cultivated it, was a major step forward in the industrial revolution.
In Western Europe the ownership of vast tracts of land by the Catholic Church and its various entities gave rise to centuries of conflict and struggle. The problems of massive rural estates tied up in "latifundia" in the Roman Republic or Latin America have been cited by many historians as pernicious heavy hands on economic progress.
In short, the capacity of a society to change land use is significant indicator of its political health. By this criteria, much of the U.S. is aging fast and in poor political health. Well-intentioned persons – and tax write-off hungry millionaires – are engaged in a well-documented upsurge in transferring ownership or development rights over land to tax-exempt entities typically known as "land trusts." According to one pressure group, the Land Trust Alliance, 800,000 acres a year are being rendered immune to further development. The total acreage protected in one form or another by such trust is probably on the order of at least 35,000,000 acres, excluding national parks and forests. In a country of many millions of acres, this may not seem like much, but in the communities where this activity is concentrated, it is having a major impact.
When hundreds of acres of prime land are taken off the tax rolls, every piece of taxable property is subject to further levies. With less buildable land available, land prices rise, raising the cost of housing. Communities react by cobbling together "affordable housing" programs which typically use tax breaks, federal and state subsidies and charitable contributions to keep the hired help nearby. I am most familiar with townships in Connecticut and Rhode Island, and the Northeast is the leader in the establishment of private land trusts – but California and Colorado are not far behind.
While I consider myself a moderate libertarian, I draw the line at the right of individuals to perpetually freeze the utilization of physical property. How can anyone today forecast the best use to society of a particular tract of land a hundred years from now? Isn’t it extraordinarily presumptuous of anyone to think that they have the foresight to be able to do this? Why not limit the ability of donors’ restrictions on land grants to, say, a maximum of fifty years?
Isn't it time to revisit and repeal the tax and foundation laws that encourage what is, in the final analysis, a mindless urge to "stop the world" – at least that part of it in which the more fortunate citizens of society have their second homes?
