Perpetual conservation easements are not merely private contracts between the owner of the land and the holder of the easement. Easement terminations - as well as amendments that are inconsistent with the stated purpose of the easement - require court approval in a cy pres proceeding, where appropriate consideration will be accorded to both the intent of the easement grantor and the interests of the public. In situations where the holder of a perpetual conservation easement simply agrees to amend (or terminate) the easement in contravention of its stated purpose, the charitable trust rules permit the state attorney general (or, if the attorney general declines to become involved or is ineffective, a party with a "special interest") to object.
There is also another interesting article at http://www.conservationlaw.org/publications/05-ThirdPartyEnforcement.pdf which reviews the same situation of "standing".
The bottom line here appears to be that without the state attorney general stepping in and classifying conservation easements as enforceable as a trust through the attorney generals authority to enforce trusts, the parties can agree to terminate the agreement and since there are only two parties to the agreement, no one else has "standing" to enforce it.
In effect, conservation easements written between two parties such as a landowner and a government entity and specifically including language as "permanent" and declared "in perpetuity" can be cancelled simply by the landowner or a new landowner ("Malt-O-Meal") deciding not to honor the conservation agreement and then convincing the government entity ("City of Lakeville, Minnesota') to agree to cancel or rescind the agreement.
No comments:
Post a Comment