Hacker News Reader

Comment by maxxxxx | Hacker News Reader

I am a little cynical maybe but I wouldn't be surprised if they built a luxury resort next to it and only wealthy clients can access it. I would be more positive if it were run like a national park accessible to all.

View on HN

> if they built a luxury resort next to it and only wealthy clients can access it.

Would that be such a bad thing though? Seems like lot better than not having protected land at all.

It's a problem in the sense that more and more area is accessible only to rich people. There is a good reason that ocean beaches in the US are accessible to everyone.

Only in California though--most ocean beaches in New England are private. Limiting access to rich people does raise inequality, though it is very effective at keeping human impact low.

How about an idea like this:

- Setup non-taxable charity - Inject $15M in charity - Purchase $15M of land, make it accessible to wealthy only for a price of $X with monthly/annual dues of $X - Accumulate $15M in non-taxable profits - Purchase $15M of land - Make first segment open to public, repeat process.

“It’s still in private ownership but the easement ensures it can never be developed,” Sweeney said. “It’s not open to anyone in the public at any time, but people can email and get a permission card and go and enjoy it.”

http://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2016/11/08/box...

Who controls the permissions? If it was a lottery where everybody can participate i am fine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com