They're not making any more of it.
June 10, 2016 5:09 PM Subscribe
100 people/families own approximately 30,000,000 acres of land in the U.S. That's roughly 50,000 sq. miles or the size of New York State. Cable billionaire John Malone comes in at #1 with 2,200,000 acres "because he loves land and his wife loves horses." A close second is Ted Turner with 2,000,000 acres: "His purchase of the Sierra Grande Lodge and Spa brings tourists closer to two of his landmark properties and, ya know, space. Richard Branson’s spaceport is just a quick drive away."
NOW can we start fighting back in the class war that's been going on for centuries?
posted by nevercalm at 5:31 PM on June 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
posted by nevercalm at 5:31 PM on June 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
ssh! do you want metafilter to be sued into oblivion?
posted by phooky at 5:39 PM on June 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by phooky at 5:39 PM on June 10, 2016 [6 favorites]
Why are all these people so into ranching? I don't get it.
posted by oceanjesse at 5:46 PM on June 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by oceanjesse at 5:46 PM on June 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
Somewhat related: "More than half of Scotland is owned by fewer than 500 people."
posted by uosuaq at 5:58 PM on June 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
posted by uosuaq at 5:58 PM on June 10, 2016 [3 favorites]
They're into ranching for the tax breaks.
posted by Geckwoistmeinauto at 6:03 PM on June 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
posted by Geckwoistmeinauto at 6:03 PM on June 10, 2016 [4 favorites]
The Fed can't print land.
Nor can it be offshored.
Land doesn't rust or rot.
Nor can it be stolen; on the contrary, pay your property taxes and the local law enforcement and judicial system works to protect your ownership rights.
And one of these rights it the right of exclusive use, to exclude others from your property -- and what a sweet, sweet right that is, and so very zero-sum.
One of Piketty's big misses was his avoidance of land economics. Economics left, right, or center doesn't feel the need to talk about it anymore for some reason.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 6:46 PM on June 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
Nor can it be offshored.
Land doesn't rust or rot.
Nor can it be stolen; on the contrary, pay your property taxes and the local law enforcement and judicial system works to protect your ownership rights.
And one of these rights it the right of exclusive use, to exclude others from your property -- and what a sweet, sweet right that is, and so very zero-sum.
One of Piketty's big misses was his avoidance of land economics. Economics left, right, or center doesn't feel the need to talk about it anymore for some reason.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 6:46 PM on June 10, 2016 [7 favorites]
I think the biggest contiguous private property I have been on was between 12,000 and 20,000 acres, though I've met people who own considerably more than that. Even those are tiny parcels compared to the estates on this list. I wish more of these families were public-minded and would donate the land to conservation or other forms of public access.
posted by Dip Flash at 7:16 PM on June 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Dip Flash at 7:16 PM on June 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
I'd love it if I could unequivocally hate on Ted Turner, but it seems like every damn week I hear about some scheme of Congress's to open up more federally-protected land to corporations for development or resource extraction, and meanwhile Ted's become more and more of a conservation nut. For similar reasons, I'm sad to see M.C. Davis replaced by "Davis Heirs" at spot #83. (Previously)
So as much as I would love to see that land distributed more equitably, I don't think there would be nearly as many endangered species living on that land if it were distributed more equally amongst humans. We storm Ted Turner's ranch with torches and pitchforks and then divvy up the land, great for us, but what happens to the 50,000+ bison living there now?
So yeah, I'm still sort of ambivalent; when ultra-rich people own vast sums of money, the clear majority of that money mostly just sits around doing nothing, and that's a clear and unambiguous waste. But when ultra-rich people own vast tracts of land, the clear majority of that land also mostly just sits around doing nothing, and I'm not near as convinced that's such a bad thing.
posted by mstokes650 at 7:27 PM on June 10, 2016 [31 favorites]
So as much as I would love to see that land distributed more equitably, I don't think there would be nearly as many endangered species living on that land if it were distributed more equally amongst humans. We storm Ted Turner's ranch with torches and pitchforks and then divvy up the land, great for us, but what happens to the 50,000+ bison living there now?
So yeah, I'm still sort of ambivalent; when ultra-rich people own vast sums of money, the clear majority of that money mostly just sits around doing nothing, and that's a clear and unambiguous waste. But when ultra-rich people own vast tracts of land, the clear majority of that land also mostly just sits around doing nothing, and I'm not near as convinced that's such a bad thing.
posted by mstokes650 at 7:27 PM on June 10, 2016 [31 favorites]
"Nor can it be stolen"
Hmm. Do you mean "again?"
clear majority of that land also mostly just sits around doing nothing
Until something to extract is found under, across, or near it.
Every time I read this sort of thing I just think about all the people who will never own anything, even a couple-hundred square feet, ever.
And how there are people, including some of these very same people, who are agitating for the turnover of federal land to the private sector, and somehow think they'll benefit from it before it's just hoovered up by one of these massive private landholders.
I guess at least with full-on feudalism most people knew where they stood.
posted by aspersioncast at 8:10 PM on June 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
Hmm. Do you mean "again?"
clear majority of that land also mostly just sits around doing nothing
Until something to extract is found under, across, or near it.
Every time I read this sort of thing I just think about all the people who will never own anything, even a couple-hundred square feet, ever.
And how there are people, including some of these very same people, who are agitating for the turnover of federal land to the private sector, and somehow think they'll benefit from it before it's just hoovered up by one of these massive private landholders.
I guess at least with full-on feudalism most people knew where they stood.
posted by aspersioncast at 8:10 PM on June 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
Sorry mstokes650, not trying to discount the rest of your point. Some of these massive landholders are also massive conservationists, and the fed obvs. doesn't have a stellar record on the extraction part of the equation.
One cool thing in WY the last few years is a huge push for "walk-in" areas, where you can cross through (and hunt/fish/whatever on) private land as long as you keep vehicles on roads and follow some basic rules.
posted by aspersioncast at 8:21 PM on June 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
One cool thing in WY the last few years is a huge push for "walk-in" areas, where you can cross through (and hunt/fish/whatever on) private land as long as you keep vehicles on roads and follow some basic rules.
posted by aspersioncast at 8:21 PM on June 10, 2016 [8 favorites]
Where I grew up, it was perfectly legal to wander on/across other people's land and even hunt/fish there regardless of whether or not it was fenced, so long as you remained a reasonable distance from occupied dwellings (or outside a fence immediately adjacent thereto), hadn't previously been barred from the landowner's property, and said property was not signed otherwise. Since the sign rules were pretty strict as far as how closely together they had to be, few properties were off limits. (A person could choose to post no hunting signs instead if they preferred)
When I was in my teens, they finally passed a law allowing a specific shade of purple paint to be used in place of signs, so many more properties were marked off limits by their owners, since it was a lot easier to slap some paint on your fence posts or property line trees than it was to post signs in sufficient numbers and the paint lasted a lot longer to boot.
That's not to say that it was unheard of for landowners out in the deepest forest to threaten people who they found on their unposted property, though. I even got shot "at" a couple of times, but that was more likely some assholes making meth in some lean-to I didn't notice than the actual landowner.
Point is that in many of the more rural states, while you have the right to exclude people from your property, you have to go to some trouble to do so, otherwise the public has at least some right of (low impact) access. I suspect some of that comes from there not being much in the way of actual roads (dirt or otherwise) in many areas until well into the 20th century. When there are no roads and no formal easements, travel requires crossing other people's land.
posted by wierdo at 10:43 PM on June 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
When I was in my teens, they finally passed a law allowing a specific shade of purple paint to be used in place of signs, so many more properties were marked off limits by their owners, since it was a lot easier to slap some paint on your fence posts or property line trees than it was to post signs in sufficient numbers and the paint lasted a lot longer to boot.
That's not to say that it was unheard of for landowners out in the deepest forest to threaten people who they found on their unposted property, though. I even got shot "at" a couple of times, but that was more likely some assholes making meth in some lean-to I didn't notice than the actual landowner.
Point is that in many of the more rural states, while you have the right to exclude people from your property, you have to go to some trouble to do so, otherwise the public has at least some right of (low impact) access. I suspect some of that comes from there not being much in the way of actual roads (dirt or otherwise) in many areas until well into the 20th century. When there are no roads and no formal easements, travel requires crossing other people's land.
posted by wierdo at 10:43 PM on June 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
Evidently these people haven't read their Tolstoy.
posted by Nerd of the North at 10:55 PM on June 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Nerd of the North at 10:55 PM on June 10, 2016 [1 favorite]
I think what I found most astonishing is that 60,000 acres can only hold 3,000 cows.
posted by corb at 11:09 PM on June 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by corb at 11:09 PM on June 10, 2016 [2 favorites]
That's one of the problems with comparing land ownership just by square area.
These are clearly still huge amounts of land for individuals or extended families to control but owning 10,000 acres means very different things depending on whether that land is in Wyoming, Iowa, Hawaii, Massachusetts, etc.
posted by Nerd of the North at 1:30 AM on June 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
These are clearly still huge amounts of land for individuals or extended families to control but owning 10,000 acres means very different things depending on whether that land is in Wyoming, Iowa, Hawaii, Massachusetts, etc.
posted by Nerd of the North at 1:30 AM on June 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
Why are all these people so into ranching? I don't get it.
Comes a point that you have to put the money someplace. London real estate is toppy, ditto the art market, ditto stocks and shares. Why not land?
posted by IndigoJones at 5:11 AM on June 11, 2016
Comes a point that you have to put the money someplace. London real estate is toppy, ditto the art market, ditto stocks and shares. Why not land?
posted by IndigoJones at 5:11 AM on June 11, 2016
yup between rough terrain, aridity and predation it's hard to raise much of anything but xeriscape in most of e.g. the Red Desert, or the dry side of the Sangre de Cristos.
It's pretty ridiculous that people try to raise megafauna at all in a lot of these places; they're hugely destructive to fairly fragile ecosystems, and at least in WY a lot of them become feral and even actually dangerous after a winter or two hiding out up on BLM land.
posted by aspersioncast at 5:18 AM on June 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
It's pretty ridiculous that people try to raise megafauna at all in a lot of these places; they're hugely destructive to fairly fragile ecosystems, and at least in WY a lot of them become feral and even actually dangerous after a winter or two hiding out up on BLM land.
posted by aspersioncast at 5:18 AM on June 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
*fences everyone in*
posted by jonmc at 6:17 AM on June 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by jonmc at 6:17 AM on June 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I just brought three acres of beautiful meadowland to add to my current holdings, bringing my real estate empire up to a total of four and a half acres of contiguous property. I will, of course, preserve it from development. That gives me a good feeling. But there is also a strange, primeval satisfaction in simply having land. I walked out there this morning, and with the birds singing, and the wildflowers spreading their scent around me, I raised my face to the sky, and with a wild joy, thought, "Mine ... mine ... it's all mine!"
posted by Modest House at 6:27 AM on June 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by Modest House at 6:27 AM on June 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
usa is 2.4 billion acres, which means these top 100 landowners only own 1.25% of our land. Considering how much wealth the top 100 richest in america own, I'm actually surprised.
posted by rebent at 10:15 AM on June 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
posted by rebent at 10:15 AM on June 11, 2016 [9 favorites]
> usa is 2.4 billion acres, which means these top 100 landowners only own 1.25% of our land.
That's only counting their direct holdings and not the land owned by the companies they own. Most wealth exists in the form of corporate equity, and ownership of other people's debt.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 10:53 AM on June 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
That's only counting their direct holdings and not the land owned by the companies they own. Most wealth exists in the form of corporate equity, and ownership of other people's debt.
posted by I-Write-Essays at 10:53 AM on June 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
Ownership is another question, but in Scotland there is the right to roam ( tried to link but failed, looking into it)
No matter who owns what, there is a right to walk (and camp and travel otherwise by non-motorised ways) across and around any area. This is and was very important to movements associated with hillwalking and hiking and education and unions and remains so - appreciating though that our land area is much smaller than in the USA and other countries.
posted by sedimentary_deer at 1:39 PM on June 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
No matter who owns what, there is a right to walk (and camp and travel otherwise by non-motorised ways) across and around any area. This is and was very important to movements associated with hillwalking and hiking and education and unions and remains so - appreciating though that our land area is much smaller than in the USA and other countries.
posted by sedimentary_deer at 1:39 PM on June 11, 2016 [4 favorites]
I should add that I suppose I was reacting to the comment upthread with the link to the guardian article about Scotland's landowners. Despite the unfairness of ownership and the associated issues I've been reading around above I just wanted to say that there are models for access that can address some of those issues... There are a lot of really interesting things happening with common/community ownership in the UK and Scotland in particular (in the above link i.e. particularly in the islands, sorry I can't work links out yet) that are worth highlighting.
posted by sedimentary_deer at 1:47 PM on June 11, 2016
posted by sedimentary_deer at 1:47 PM on June 11, 2016
This is a neat piece of trivia, but I'm at a loss trying to draw any meaningful conclusions other than the usual *grar rich people* nonsense.
posted by 2N2222 at 2:39 PM on June 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by 2N2222 at 2:39 PM on June 11, 2016 [2 favorites]
> Comes a point that you have to put the money someplace.
This is a key point. People who have money need to invest it somewhere. It won't do any good buried in ammo boxes in the ground. Many of them like to invest in real estate. It is usually a good choice.
What this has to do with class warfare is not clear. If a person has $30 million, whether he invests it in land, Apple shares, a new company, or gold does not really matter. He wants to make sure that (1) it won't be dissipated and (2) it will grow over time. Some of those investments/uses might well benefit other people.
posted by yclipse at 5:28 PM on June 11, 2016
This is a key point. People who have money need to invest it somewhere. It won't do any good buried in ammo boxes in the ground. Many of them like to invest in real estate. It is usually a good choice.
What this has to do with class warfare is not clear. If a person has $30 million, whether he invests it in land, Apple shares, a new company, or gold does not really matter. He wants to make sure that (1) it won't be dissipated and (2) it will grow over time. Some of those investments/uses might well benefit other people.
posted by yclipse at 5:28 PM on June 11, 2016
What this has to do with class warfare is not clear. If a person has $30 million, whether he invests it in land, Apple shares, a new company, or gold does not really matter
Taking a claims out of the commons is not like the other form of capital investments in that mere land ownership is not an investment in creating new wealth, just capturing existing wealth.
I'm not impoverished by someone buying $30M of gold bullion, I am by the privatization of $30M of real estate.
yes, the crime happened a long time ago, but it's still a wrong, and an ongoing theft harming us all.
cue ♪
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 8:06 PM on June 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
Taking a claims out of the commons is not like the other form of capital investments in that mere land ownership is not an investment in creating new wealth, just capturing existing wealth.
I'm not impoverished by someone buying $30M of gold bullion, I am by the privatization of $30M of real estate.
yes, the crime happened a long time ago, but it's still a wrong, and an ongoing theft harming us all.
cue ♪
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 8:06 PM on June 11, 2016 [5 favorites]
^^ Yes this.
Incidentally, "right to roam" is an excellent phrase.
posted by aspersioncast at 8:29 PM on June 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
Incidentally, "right to roam" is an excellent phrase.
posted by aspersioncast at 8:29 PM on June 11, 2016 [1 favorite]
I'm not impoverished by someone buying $30M of gold bullion, I am by the privatization of $30M of real estate.
How, exactly? It's not even clear how much of the land owned by these 100 people/families was public before they owned it. If that $30M tract of land was owned by several people before being owned by one, there may be no effect on you at all.
If the land was public, it seems strange to claim that you'd be impoverished. Public land seems to be concentrated out here in the west. Funny thing is, if were somehow privatized overnight, the effects would mostly be felt by commercial resource extraction/agriculture interests. Most regular folk would never know any difference. Every now and then, there is some proposal that these public lands should be sold off for one reason or another. But the reality much of the land isn't worth buying but better leased from the government for mining, grazing, etc. In general, public lands are available for recreational use, but most of it isn't anything like park land, being completely undeveloped, sometimes remote, inhospitable and largely ignored by pretty much everyone. The people who do seem to utilize it most for recreation are often at odds with conservationists.
posted by 2N2222 at 12:15 AM on June 12, 2016
corb: I think what I found most astonishing is that 60,000 acres can only hold 3,000 cows.
Welcome to ranching in the arid west, where "each steer requires nearly 50 rangeland acres or its equivalent, or roughly a stocking rate of 13 animals per 640-acre section of land." (New Mexico State University research)
posted by filthy light thief at 10:19 AM on June 12, 2016
Welcome to ranching in the arid west, where "each steer requires nearly 50 rangeland acres or its equivalent, or roughly a stocking rate of 13 animals per 640-acre section of land." (New Mexico State University research)
posted by filthy light thief at 10:19 AM on June 12, 2016
It's not even clear how much of the land owned by these 100 people/families was public before they owned it.
that's just it, all claims of the commons is a dispossession to me.
To prove a legal title to land one must trace it back to the man who stole it. -- David Lloyd George
The conservation angle is a fig leaf IMO -- the less public lands we have the more pressure we put on them. Personally, speaking not in the abstract here, I'd like to live a more mobile lifestyle with much more "BLM land" to dry camp out on.
And the closer we get to actual civilization the more the monopoly on land by the wealthy harms our society. We have the bottom of our class structure competing with global capital for the primary necessities of life -- a place to live, access to work and education -- thanks to our broken land system.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 10:30 AM on June 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
that's just it, all claims of the commons is a dispossession to me.
To prove a legal title to land one must trace it back to the man who stole it. -- David Lloyd George
The conservation angle is a fig leaf IMO -- the less public lands we have the more pressure we put on them. Personally, speaking not in the abstract here, I'd like to live a more mobile lifestyle with much more "BLM land" to dry camp out on.
And the closer we get to actual civilization the more the monopoly on land by the wealthy harms our society. We have the bottom of our class structure competing with global capital for the primary necessities of life -- a place to live, access to work and education -- thanks to our broken land system.
posted by Heywood Mogroot III at 10:30 AM on June 12, 2016 [2 favorites]
Here's a handy list of (family) names for 2015, with some information on the movement of various names from prior years. It's weird to see New Mexico mentioned so much, but it looks like large land holdings aren't that unusual. I was looking to see Robert Roche on that list, but his one mentioned 26,000 acre holding apparently isn't enough to get this Chinese infomercial millionaire on the list.
posted by filthy light thief at 10:20 AM on June 13, 2016
posted by filthy light thief at 10:20 AM on June 13, 2016
« Older Lifting Bricks | Because you catch more flies with honey than... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Michael Tellurian at 5:11 PM on June 10, 2016 [1 favorite]