This year my family moved to a very small, very rural town in Northwest Connecticut. The area seems to balance a lengthy history of agriculture with modern NYC residents’ rural vacation homes.

My town’s most recent Plan of Conservation & Development prioritizes a handful of conflicting stewardship goals, but “Attract & Retain Young Families” still tops the protection and conservation items.

The aging population and second-home affluence, though, fuels support for local Land Trusts, freezing land use for future generations in whatever shape today’s retirees happen to prefer.

Land Trusts offer a private solution to circumvent municipal interest. They operate by holding conservation easements that legally restrict land use in perpetuity. There’s rarely a timeout, a re-evaluation, or any recourse for future generations.

Landowners should be free to do what they want with their kingdoms. But choosing a permanent freeze admits a distrust of the inheriting generation, sabotaging the agency of those who follow and tanking any sense of shared ownership in the community that landowners claim to protect.

If the town is serious about attracting young families and long-term conservation, a viable solution can’t box out the former. If Land Trusts want a seat at the table, I expect them to weigh public opinion in their pursuits. If they jump at every opportunity to lock acreage away from our future, then they aren’t a partner for the long haul.

Let’s conserve working farmland rationally, and let’s build an environment that actually gives young families a reason to believe that this is a community worth stewarding.