
For Sale: America’s Largest Private Grove of Giant Sequoias - thread_id
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/giant-sequoias-for-sale
======
MiguelVieira
[https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-09-16/alder-
cr...](https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-09-16/alder-creek-giant-
sequoia-grove-conservation)

"After more than seven decades of ownership, the Rouchs have struck a deal to
sell their sequoia-studded piece of the Sierra Nevada to the Save the Redwoods
League, a century-old conservation group that has long hankered after the
property."

~~~
JoBrad
I think the linked article has the same information:

> The [Save the Redwoods] league recently signed a purchase agreement with the
> family, and is seeking $15 million from the public to acquire the land and
> the giant sequoias on it, nearly 500 of which have a diameter of six feet or
> more.

------
zyordz
[https://www.savetheredwoods.org/project/alder-
creek/](https://www.savetheredwoods.org/project/alder-creek/)

------
buboard
I see a cottage industry forming which will raise prices of rural land due to
visibility and environmental campaigning.

------
justhw
I've wanted to see these trees for a long time and recently got the chance to
camp in Sequoia National Park. It was breathtaking to say the least. One of my
favorite places.

~~~
jcims
Saw them for the first time at the same park about four years ago. One of the
trippiest sober experiences of my life. They seem alien.

------
diveanon
I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't a couple people on this site who
could afford to buy it outright.

Someone just make a gofundme and turn it into public land.

~~~
trappist
Why? It seems to me private ownership has performed at least as well as public
for the preservation of the trees.

~~~
lacker
Not really. The current owners have cleared some of the forest, just not the
sequoias, which probably isn’t optimal for preservation. I mean, I don’t blame
the current owners, but it does seem like the trees would likely be better off
as part of the adjacent park than staying in private hands.

~~~
guerrilla
> I don’t blame the current owners

I do. Who do you blame?

------
gigatexal
Someone please buy it to conserve it and it harvest

~~~
gigatexal
doh! I meant someone buy it to conserve it and protect it from harvesting.

~~~
BasicObject
You can edit comments. FYI

------
onetimemanytime
$15 million....what's that, an olive in the salad of US military? Have USA buy
it...

~~~
enjoyyourlife
Remember that they would have to maintain it...

~~~
vatys
Left entirely alone, I think the trees maintain themselves rather well

~~~
masonic
No, they would have to be protected from poaching.

~~~
jcims
And cleared a bit to reduce fuel loading in case of fire.

------
mirimir
> We value your privacy

I hate popups that can't be dismissed. But reader mode works regardless, at
least.

~~~
mirimir
Edit: Refusing tracking-free access violates GDPR.[0] That is, unless you
explicitly deny access to EU residents.[1]

0) [https://www.gdprtoday.org/dutch-dpa-rules-websites-must-
allo...](https://www.gdprtoday.org/dutch-dpa-rules-websites-must-allow-people-
to-refuse-tracking-cookies/)

1) [https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/29562/is-it-
possible...](https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/29562/is-it-possible-to-
refuse-offering-service-to-gdpr-protected-customers)

~~~
shkkmo
[1] is not the only way

There are a number of ways to demonstrate that you are not doing business in
the EU and thus do not have to comply with the GDPR and can refuse tracking-
free access.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
GDPR applies regardless of whether you're doing business, and IIUIC applies to
_people_ from the EU rather than just people currently in the EU.

~~~
icebraining
> applies to _people_ from the EU rather than just people currently in the EU.

No, it applies to "data subjects who are in the Union" (art. 3 - "Territorial
scope"), not from the Union.

(This is for non-EU data processing organizations; the EU-based
organizations/companies must apply the GDPR to _everyone_ in the world)

~~~
pbhjpbhj
I read it as they are "in the Union" by virtue of nationality; that is they
are "[legally] in the Union" [[https://gdpr-
info.eu/art-3-gdpr/];](https://gdpr-info.eu/art-3-gdpr/\];) but it seems
you're right, eg. [https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-
protection/refo...](https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-
protection/reform/rules-business-and-organisations/application-regulation/who-
does-data-protection-law-apply_en)

------
imode
I will be shocked if they can raise the required amount.

Shame that this property will probably be bulldozed and exploited like every
other natural resource on this planet.

To downvoters, is it because I'm right, or because you don't like the
consequences?

~~~
lacker
I doubt anyone would bulldoze the area. It doesn’t have all that much
commercial value as an empty field. The most likely outcome if they don’t
manage to raise the 15m is that the property stays as it is, and the owners
hold out to get more money later, while preserving the trees to keep up its
property value.

