COLUMN: Losing land over money making
One of the most healthy exercises to perform in a democracy is to compare the actions of elected officials in the weeks and months following an election campaign with their promises to deliver peace, prosperity, health, economic growth and just about everything else short of a complimentary car in every voter’s driveway. A casual review of the campaign literature of the Cache County Council candidates of the 2002 election reveals a high emphasis on the quality of life associated with Cache Valley’s rural, agricultural environment that gives Utah State University much of its charm.
We are still waiting for specific actions to curb the sprawl that is consuming USU’s surrounding rural community and our quality of life. In a recent council meeting, it dropped the opportunity to place on the 2003 or 2004 ballot a $20 million bond measure to protect agricultural lands from development. Such arrangements are strictly voluntary for the landowner and can, and have in many other areas of the country, provide a solid and creative protection option for farmers who are grappling with high development land values and correspondingly high property taxes. Conservation easements are one example. These easements keep the land in private ownership while transferring the development rights to the local government or a non-profit land protection organization. This arrangement is a win-win solution for all parties, because it removes the land’s taxable development value, providing badly needed tax relief to the farmer and protects the farmland of Cache Valley.
However, the council declined to place the measure on the ballot, instead kicking the issue back to the county’s planning commission for further story. Although conservationists are sensitive to the taxes that will be needed to repay that $20 million, it is a small price to pay for the protection of our farmland. The long-term property tax burden of the debt to be repaid is a valid concern, particularly since the county is not allowed to raise the money via sales taxes due to a recent declaration from the state legislature. (This move proved that the Legislature sweeps its stated philosophy of local control out the door when it conflicts with wealthy development interests.) Certainly, we should work to reduce this burden, as well as create other options for farmers to avoid the rapidly approaching wave of development.
However, it is not clear that such rational concerns drove the decision to table the issue. A particular suspect is County Attorney George Daines’s argument that $20 million is not enough to make a difference, and his suggestion at the council meeting prior to the vote that $200 million might be a more reasonable sum. While I would be the first to support such a move if it were economically feasible, Daines knows that Cache County cannot afford, and will not sell, a $200 million bond (about $2,000 for every citizen of Cache County). The argument is also plainly wrong, as $20 million, coupled with other private and public funds it would help leverage, would indeed make a significant dent in the ongoing loss of agricultural lands. The math is not difficult.
Some council members also suggested that the small proportion of voters who participate in off-year elections would make it unsuitable for the ’03 ballot. This is a valid concern, and normally the decision to postpone the issue for further study should carry the benefit of the doubt. However, because the council has done nothing else to protect natural lands and farmlands (and has actually tried to accelerate its loss in the infamous near-disaster case of Powder Mountain), the burden of proof lies instead with the council. Even if some council members are secretly opposed to protecting our open space, the ethical action is still to place the issue on the ballot, and allow the citizens of Cache County, including students of USU, to decide this important issue directly.
Cache Valley is still waiting for a solution to the ongoing loss of our rural heritage. Endless delay in the face of uncertainty is the attitude of tobacco companies toward lung cancer, oil companies toward global warming, mining companies toward asbestos, and other feats of procrastination now recognized as disasters of unimaginable magnitude. Further delay is not an acceptable response to this issue that will forever define our generation’s legacy for our children and grandchildren. The protection of Cache Valley’s open space needs action now.
Jim Steitz graduated from Utah State University in environmental science. Comments can be sent to jim.steitz@usu.edu.