Apparently you did not read my post; I was asking for information, and I have an open mind. Asking for information is an admission that one does not have all the answers and is willing to learn.
I was mainly trying to point out that some of the information you requested was already provided in the posts I listed for you. They are enough to convince me to be opposed to the TNC. I could see if they kept all the land but cannot support how they are acting as an enabler to government takeover of land with taxpayer money while permanently restricting use of the land the taxpayers bought.
The problem I think is that the bureaucrats WANT to buy the land WITH the restrictions. When you buy land you want as few restrictions as possible. If an agent buys land for you they should negotiate for as few restrictions as possible. If a bureaucrat buys land with a wink to TNC saying please give me restrictions, then TNC is enabling the government to act against best interest of the taxpayers and future voters who may want to use the land in other ways. The profits to TNC when the goverment pays them high prices is suspect as well.
It bad enough when the government just buys up land., but at least it can always sell it back to the private sector if voter sentiment changes. But with the TNC the government has figured out a way to lock future voters out of deciding how to use the land they paid for.
Like others, I agree with the concept of buying land and owning it to keep it undeveloped. I just don't like TNC based on what I have read here.