Adirondack Forum  
Rules Membership Donations and Online Store Adkhighpeaks Foundation ADKhighpeaks Forums ADKhighpeaks Wiki Disclaimer

Go Back   Adirondack Forum > Current Affairs and Environmental Issues > Current and Historical Affairs
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 02-09-2011, 01:31 PM   #21
Paradox6
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Washingtonville, NY
Posts: 252
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 at 02:25 PM..
Paradox6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2011, 05:41 PM   #22
UpstateIrish
Member
 
UpstateIrish's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 209
Quote:
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
UpstateIrish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2011, 07:26 PM   #23
Paradox6
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Washingtonville, NY
Posts: 252
Quote:
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.
Paradox6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-09-2011, 11:10 PM   #24
adkeditor
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Saranac Lake
Posts: 400
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
adkeditor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2011, 12:16 AM   #25
Paradox6
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Washingtonville, NY
Posts: 252
Quote:
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 at 12:50 AM..
Paradox6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2011, 08:05 AM   #26
fisher39
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,006
Quote:
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.
fisher39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2011, 08:32 AM   #27
40dog
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 158
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 ??
40dog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2011, 08:47 AM   #28
ADKHUNTER
Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Hudson Valley
Posts: 885
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.
ADKHUNTER is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2011, 09:24 AM   #29
40dog
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 158
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?
40dog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2011, 10:03 AM   #30
rADK
Member
 
rADK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: NY
Posts: 233
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.
rADK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2011, 08:41 AM   #31
RTSpoons
Member
 
RTSpoons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Troy, NY
Posts: 100
enjoyed reading the various articles about the land purchase and it's status. as a hiker, not a hunter or fisherman, I enjoy walking through the forest and climbing the hills. I hope at the very least The Nature Conservancy puts a clause in their lease to these clubs which opens the land to public use, to various degrees.
RTSpoons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2011, 06:29 PM   #32
forest dweller
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 529
These are the kinds of threads that have the potential to get me into trouble here!

I just have one point I'd like to make. I'll be subtle, polite and discrete!

To those people who say that New York cannot afford to take care of the land it already has...How costly can roadless and trail-less wilderness possibly be once the funds are produced to purchase the land? I can see if they had public campsites, trails and roads to maintain in them, but in a wilderness state wouldn't they be pretty "low maintenance"?
forest dweller is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

DISCLAIMER: Use of these forums, and information found herein, is at your own risk. Use of this site by members and non-members alike is only granted by the adkhighpeak.com administration provided the terms and conditions found in the FULL DISCLAIMER have been read. Continued use of this site implies that you have read, understood and agree to the terms and conditions of this site. Any questions can be directed to the Administrator of this site.