I think I read a comment on HN recently about people buying up land to conserve it via private organizations rather than the government. The government might sell it in times of hardship, but with multiple non-profit organizations responsible for maintaining the land, their mission would be less likely to be compromised by other national interests.
It's equally easy to imagine that a private organization is statistically much more likely to go into debt due to well-intentioned bad management decisions, go bankrupt, and have its land sold to the highest bidder.
In the end, it might depend a lot on which government and which type of private org we're talking about.
I think a lot of these organizations have set themselves up in a way that if they cease to exist, the land isn’t available as an asset for private sale.
You can sell or give away the right to develop the land.
Similar to HoAs you can restrict the usage of your land and as long as someone else holds the keys to unlocking that usage it will survive bankruptcy. The title would retain the restrictions.
It needs to be an entity due to no rules from private entities lasting forever, by making some entity control the release it isn't you deciding to persist but them.
It isn't foolproof of course but avoids the simplest failure modes.
> The conservancy, which operates 22 other preserves in California, and one in Oregon, plans to open the scenic property to the public for hiking, mountain biking and horseback riding in the coming years for free
Much of the San Francisco peninsula open space is under the supervision of an open space initiative voters approved about fifty years ago, it’s a line item in my annual taxes so government can work, too. https://www.openspace.org/who-we-are
