Monday, February 23, 2009

N.D. law complicates nonprofit land purchases

Hetletved’s dilemma — he’s now trying to decide what to do with the land — has its roots in North Dakota anti-corporate farming laws that date to the early 1900s. Nonprofits historically were classified as corporate entities and banned from owning land in North Dakota until the mid-1980s, when the Legislature passed a bill that provided for an exception to anti-corporate farming laws. Nonprofits can buy land, but there’s a caveat: They have to get past the acquisition committee and the governor first. Critics say the makeup of the committee — which is mandated by law — stacks the deck against nonprofits. The state ag commissioner chairs the committee, which also includes representatives from the North Dakota Farmers Union, North Dakota Farm Bureau and North Dakota Stockmen’s Association, along with the directors of the state Game and Fish Department, Parks and Recreation Department and North Dakota Forest Service. The chairman of the county board in which the land is located rounds out the committee. “We think the way the Legislature has designed this advisory committee, it’s pretty much preordained to vote against us,” said Jim Ringelman, DU’s director of conservation programs for the Dakotas and Montana. “What we operate under is an exception to corporate farming law, which sounds like it’s gracious. But the point of fact is, if you never approve their applications, what’s the point?” Historically, Ringelman said, farm groups, the county boards and the ag commissioner vote against allowing nonprofit purchases to proceed. He said North Dakota has the most restrictive laws in the country when it comes to buying land. North Dakota also is the only state in the U.S. to ban landowners from selling perpetual easements, in which the property owner keeps the land but grants someone else the right to use or restrict the property. The state Senate just this week overwhelmingly voted down a bill to repeal that ban. Easements in North Dakota can be no longer than 99 years...Grand Forks Herald

No comments: