Nonprofits, the latent public

The examples of Nature Conservancy land deals provided by the Chronicle of Philanthropy seem a gross misuse of charitable funds and an abuse of the organization’s tax exempt status. According to the organization’s website, www.nature.org, “The Nature Conservancy's mission is to preserve the plants, animals and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive.” Rather than adhering to its mission, the land deals disclosed seem to focus on improving the organization’s financial return, as was the case with the foundation investing practices described in the other readings.

To play devil’s advocate, there is no reason that conservancy lands must be open for public use, nor is it reprehensible that the organization tries to seek a balance between healthy industries and a protected environment, but none of these cases seem to benefit the environment. Driveways, tennis courts, and swimming pools amid a professional landscape architect’s botanical design may be greener than a tract of double-wide trailers or high rise condominiums, but it is still development that puts the desires of people above the needs of the “natural community” that would otherwise exist.

If the Nature Conservancy was a for profit land developer, then their tactics might be considered admirable. However, since such an organization would not be very likely to turn a profit without a tax break, it is, in reality an opaque organization that showcases government’s lack of nonprofit regulation.

The more we learn about nonprofits, the more I believe that the IRS is overlooking a profitable latent public that could result in huge increases in tax revenue at the cost of enforcing existing rules.