Conservation easements reveal major tensions between the privacy concerns of landowners and the right of the public to access information about private land conservation. State and federal governments face important choices about how to provide public access to this information given growing concerns that the public’s substantial investment in conservation easements will be lost without comprehensive tracking over the long term. In this Article, we reflect on the public nature of conservation easements and the challenges posed by their perpetuity, and we provide concrete recommendations for legislatures seeking to improve conservation easement tracking. We employ interdisciplinary methods to assess multiple approaches to conservation easement tracking, focusing on California as a case study.Our California analysis examines the legislative history of state and county efforts to track conservation easements. We interviewed conservation experts and used a telephone survey of county recorder offices to assess county compliance with a California law requiring conservation easement indexing. We also employed a Geographic Information System to evaluate access to spatial data on conservation lands. Despite state, county, and non-profit tracking efforts, access to conservation easement data remains fragmented and incomplete. Based on this integrative research, we suggest that five elements are particularly important to an expanded, statewide system for tracking conservation easements: (1) including as many conservation easements as possible; (2)tracking public financial investments; (3)mapping conservation easements; (4)including specific purposes and restrictions in conservation easement databases; and (5) monitoring of monitoring.
{"title":"Public Access to Information on Private Land Conservation: Tracking Conservation Easements","authors":"A. Morris, A. Rissman","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2816156","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2816156","url":null,"abstract":"Conservation easements reveal major tensions between the privacy concerns of landowners and the right of the public to access information about private land conservation. State and federal governments face important choices about how to provide public access to this information given growing concerns that the public’s substantial investment in conservation easements will be lost without comprehensive tracking over the long term. In this Article, we reflect on the public nature of conservation easements and the challenges posed by their perpetuity, and we provide concrete recommendations for legislatures seeking to improve conservation easement tracking. We employ interdisciplinary methods to assess multiple approaches to conservation easement tracking, focusing on California as a case study.Our California analysis examines the legislative history of state and county efforts to track conservation easements. We interviewed conservation experts and used a telephone survey of county recorder offices to assess county compliance with a California law requiring conservation easement indexing. We also employed a Geographic Information System to evaluate access to spatial data on conservation lands. Despite state, county, and non-profit tracking efforts, access to conservation easement data remains fragmented and incomplete. Based on this integrative research, we suggest that five elements are particularly important to an expanded, statewide system for tracking conservation easements: (1) including as many conservation easements as possible; (2)tracking public financial investments; (3)mapping conservation easements; (4)including specific purposes and restrictions in conservation easement databases; and (5) monitoring of monitoring.","PeriodicalId":342854,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Real Property Rights (Topic)","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131310252","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Debate on the role of land reforms in the economic growth of developing countries has been on for a long time without firm consensus. However, the apparent failure of the ‘IMF-market-driven’ based economic reforms and policies to deliver quickly the much needed equitable economic growth seem to have accelerated demands for broadening of development strategies to include it. In this dissertation, the author attempts to analyze the impact of land reforms in the economic growth in developing countries. It is argued that land reforms that provide for efficient land administration and land registration system creates a framework for definition of property rights and land tenure security through issuance of land titles. It is further argued that this creates investment incentives; promotes efficiency; increases collateral value and other sector-wide externalities that promote economic growth. Using data from Uganda, the author tested the hypothesis that: “land reforms positively contribute to a country’s economic growth”. The evidence presented suggests a positive statistical significant relationship between land reforms and economic growth as approximated by: a) collateral value of a title and access to the credit market (Domestic credit to private sector); b) impact of land tenure security on investment and; c) FDI (control variable). However, the impact of urbanisation (a proxy for allocative efficiency) on economic growth was negative, contrary to the earlier expectation. This may not be considered a surprise result given the high levels of urban unemployment in Uganda. The general conclusion however is that for land reform to be effective, it should be accompanied by a wide range of other programmes such as development of appropriate rural infrastructure, reform of credit institutions, marketing facilities and new technologies as a comprehensive development policy.
{"title":"Land Reforms and Economic Growth in Developing Countries: A Case Study of Uganda","authors":"Stephen Mugenyi","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3605300","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3605300","url":null,"abstract":"Debate on the role of land reforms in the economic growth of developing countries has been on for a long time without firm consensus. However, the apparent failure of the ‘IMF-market-driven’ based economic reforms and policies to deliver quickly the much needed equitable economic growth seem to have accelerated demands for broadening of development strategies to include it. In this dissertation, the author attempts to analyze the impact of land reforms in the economic growth in developing countries. It is argued that land reforms that provide for efficient land administration and land registration system creates a framework for definition of property rights and land tenure security through issuance of land titles. It is further argued that this creates investment incentives; promotes efficiency; increases collateral value and other sector-wide externalities that promote economic growth. Using data from Uganda, the author tested the hypothesis that: “land reforms positively contribute to a country’s economic growth”. The evidence presented suggests a positive statistical significant relationship between land reforms and economic growth as approximated by: a) collateral value of a title and access to the credit market (Domestic credit to private sector); b) impact of land tenure security on investment and; c) FDI (control variable). However, the impact of urbanisation (a proxy for allocative efficiency) on economic growth was negative, contrary to the earlier expectation. This may not be considered a surprise result given the high levels of urban unemployment in Uganda. The general conclusion however is that for land reform to be effective, it should be accompanied by a wide range of other programmes such as development of appropriate rural infrastructure, reform of credit institutions, marketing facilities and new technologies as a comprehensive development policy.","PeriodicalId":342854,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Real Property Rights (Topic)","volume":"183 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131531144","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
At the close of the 2018 legislative session Florida Governor Rick Scott signed HB 631 into law. Included in the bill, which addressed a number of issues relating to actions for ejectment from real property, was an amendment to the Florida Community Planning Act entitled “Establishment of Recreational Customary Use.” The new statute immediately created a sandstorm of controversy as the media seized on what many in the public perceived to be a land grab over the public’s right to recreate on Florida’s sandy beaches. As it turns out, the story is considerably more nuanced, and neither the advocates on both sides nor the media did the public any favors in the commentary and reporting on this issue. However, both the background to the legislation and subsequent events indicate that the public is rightly concerned about efforts to limit recreational access, some of which have been spurred or exacerbated by what had been a largely localized controversy. This paper begins by briefly describing the history of the current controversy, which had its origins in Walton County, Florida. The conflict centers on arguments about the public’s right to use the dry sand beach -- that area of the beach that is between the line of vegetation and the mean high tide line, and is often privately owned. We then discuss the broader legal context that gives rise to boundary disputes along dynamic shorelines and provide the essential policy-relevant facts concerning public and private sandy beach ownership. In order to fully understand the legal basis for the public’s claim of right to use the sandy beaches and the legislative response, we summarize the history of the relevant legal doctrine – known as customary use -- that came over from England during the post-colonial era and made its way into the law of a number of states, including Florida. We offer a detailed review of the Florida Supreme Court’s landmark case on the customary use doctrine along with subsequent lower court cases interpreting it. We then attempt to identify the legal issues that have created widespread confusion regarding the interplay among the common law property rights at issue, local ordinances that recognize and regulate those rights, and particularly, the state legislation that precipitated the widespread attention to and conflict over this issue -- HB 631, now codified in Fla. Stat. 163.035. After flagging several legal issues at the heart of the conflict, we provide an annotated summary of the statute that describes the interpretive issues it raises or may raise. We conclude by discussing some of the options available to the Florida legislature to resolve the sandstorm of controversy that HB 631 engendered.
{"title":"Recreational Rights to the Dry Sand Beach in Florida: Property, Custom and Controversy","authors":"A. Flournoy, T. Ankersen, S. Alvarenga","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3309926","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3309926","url":null,"abstract":"At the close of the 2018 legislative session Florida Governor Rick Scott signed HB 631 into law. Included in the bill, which addressed a number of issues relating to actions for ejectment from real property, was an amendment to the Florida Community Planning Act entitled “Establishment of Recreational Customary Use.” The new statute immediately created a sandstorm of controversy as the media seized on what many in the public perceived to be a land grab over the public’s right to recreate on Florida’s sandy beaches. As it turns out, the story is considerably more nuanced, and neither the advocates on both sides nor the media did the public any favors in the commentary and reporting on this issue. However, both the background to the legislation and subsequent events indicate that the public is rightly concerned about efforts to limit recreational access, some of which have been spurred or exacerbated by what had been a largely localized controversy. \u0000 \u0000This paper begins by briefly describing the history of the current controversy, which had its origins in Walton County, Florida. The conflict centers on arguments about the public’s right to use the dry sand beach -- that area of the beach that is between the line of vegetation and the mean high tide line, and is often privately owned. We then discuss the broader legal context that gives rise to boundary disputes along dynamic shorelines and provide the essential policy-relevant facts concerning public and private sandy beach ownership. In order to fully understand the legal basis for the public’s claim of right to use the sandy beaches and the legislative response, we summarize the history of the relevant legal doctrine – known as customary use -- that came over from England during the post-colonial era and made its way into the law of a number of states, including Florida. We offer a detailed review of the Florida Supreme Court’s landmark case on the customary use doctrine along with subsequent lower court cases interpreting it. We then attempt to identify the legal issues that have created widespread confusion regarding the interplay among the common law property rights at issue, local ordinances that recognize and regulate those rights, and particularly, the state legislation that precipitated the widespread attention to and conflict over this issue -- HB 631, now codified in Fla. Stat. 163.035. After flagging several legal issues at the heart of the conflict, we provide an annotated summary of the statute that describes the interpretive issues it raises or may raise. We conclude by discussing some of the options available to the Florida legislature to resolve the sandstorm of controversy that HB 631 engendered.","PeriodicalId":342854,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Real Property Rights (Topic)","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115823492","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：