The Community Impact of Land Trusts

Robert Swann

[Chapter 4 from Building Sustainable Communities, Tools and Concepts for Self-Reliant Economic Change, published by The Bootstrap Press, New York, NY, 1989]

Land trusts can have an extraordinary "ripple effect" on the economy and ecology of an entire community. Below is a hypothetical example of what could happen in any Northeastern community in the U.S. if all of the land hi the community were held in trust.

In the first place, let us say that the entire area might consist of 20,000 acres (about average for a Massachusetts town). In this area, we would have perhaps 70-80 percent forested land and the rest open space devoted to farming or built up in housing, industry, etc. (such a distribution is typical in New England). Presently (before going into trust) the forested land is not being used for lumber except to a limited degree -- and only a small portion is used for firewood -- or sometimes for pulp-wood for paper production. In general, such forest land is totally underutilized because of the former pattern of ownership, which generally consists of small parcels (20-300 acres), none of them large enough to justify sustained-yield forest management. Moreover, the former owners tended to view the land as an investment, to be held for future sale at, hopefully, a good capital gain or high speculative price. Holding the land for a high speculative price has eliminated the possibility of anyone buying it for forest management purposes because it would be too expensive at the "speculation price" per acre for such purposes -- in fact, it would also be too expensive for farming. Thus, the farmers who became too old to farm have usually sold their farms off to non-farmers, either speculators or people rich enough to be able to afford to buy their "piece of the country" without farming. Even when the land was used, the economic rent went into private hands and did not tend to accrue to the benefit of the community, thus minimizing the impact on local employment.

But now it is held in trust (never mind how it got there -- we will discuss that later). Now it can be put into sustained-yield management, because the forest area is large enough (15,000-16,000 acres) for good management, and no longer is being held for speculation. What does this mean in terms of employment? In the first place, it means that for every 300-400 acres the project can employ one person full time to clean out and thin out the trees (dead wood, poor species, etc.) so that the remaining trees selected for lumber will grow more rapidly. This employs about 50 or so persons who probably were not formerly employed within the community. We will also need four to six full-time foresters to manage the forests. Secondly, the weed trees which are cleaned out will go into one or more of the following markets: energy (firewood or wood chips), pulpwood (paper), or the newly developing cattle food market.[1] Since these markets will in turn stimulate new local industries, more new jobs will be created. In addition, over time, good lumber will be grown in these forests which will bring a higher price, require logging operations, and provide increased employment, as well as put new, better quality lumber into the local market for housing and wood industries.

At the same time, since the farmland has been freed of speculative demands, it too can go back into production and once again provide employment for young people anxious to get back into farming but frustrated at all points because of the high cost of land. With increased production from forests and farmland, local taxes assessed through the trust as the price of leasing the land will mean that the town can provide better services, better roads, better schools, etc. without burdening the older home-owning taxpayers. These services will also increase employment and improve everybody's standard of living. New housing for the new employees in the forest and farm industries will also bring increased employment, but because of the trust, this housing can be planned to go on the most suitable land from an ecological and planning viewpoint - not simply where land can be purchased - thus saving extra costs of unplanned development. Moreover, since the land is not purchased, the cost of the housing can be lower in cost with local employees receiving first option on purchase.

Finally, then, how is this to come about? Because the people in the town decide for themselves that they will set up the trust and voluntarily give the land to the trust. After all, they will be the major beneficiaries when increased employment means that then* sons and daughters can find employment near home and the entire town becomes revitalized. But if not enough of them are attracted to this proposition, then there would be other direct financial benefits derived from increased productivity of forests and farmland. These would go directly to the former landowners and indirectly, through improved services and increased local business, to all residents.[2]

One other important point which Rudolf Steiner makes in his World Economy is that not only have we "decommoditized" the land (by taking it out of the speculative market) but we have also "decapitalized" the land. That is, no longer is it necessary to draw on the capital markets (including local banks) to buy the land. Thus, the capital formerly tied up in land is free to be used for other kinds of investment. These may be mortgages on housing, new industries such as solar energy, farm improvements, etc., or they may go into "spiritual" needs such as new kinds of education, or "spiritual work," which, as Sterner points out, are really the most economically productive for the future.

There will be those who will sneer at the above as a mere "idealistic" dream. It may be so, but it has never been tried. No such vision has ever been put before a community, large or small, where the community (it would require less than a majority to put it into practice) could make the decision. In any case, it needs to be tested. As inflation and unemployment grow, I suspect that many communities will be ready to try new approaches, particularly when they realize that none of the government programs are working except in peripheral ways.

NOTES

1. In those parts of the country where forest land is not available, other sources of "bio-mass" (e.g., rapid-growing crops) could substitute for wood as an energy source, providing the land is available at reasonable cost.
2. Even if the cost of such an undertaking were subsidized by the federal government, the funds thus expended would "leverage" far more employment than any other kind of subsidy. Economists have calculated that for every family which moves into an urban area from a rural area, about $50,000-60,000 in local municipal or federal subsidies are required in order to cover the increased load on public services (fire, police, road repair and maintenance, etc.), health and welfare, job training, and so forth. Only a fraction of this amount would be required in rural areas - if land were made available - to accomplish the same purposes.