County Shouldn't Be In the Swampland Business
Why should the taxpayers foot the bill for the Nature Conservancies projects?
It was an Oscar-worthy performance. Beating back tears, the Nature Conservancy's Ellen Lott made an impassioned plea that Northampton County Council save 130 acres of woodland in Upper Mount Bethel.
"I am here to speak for the trees because they have no tongues." She also claimed to speak for salamanders, frogs and "a place where raptors soar overhead and water trickles down."
The trees, lizards and chicken hawks need your dough, and they got it, too.
After hearing Lott compare Ron Angle country to the Amazon rain forest, it was unanimous, the presiding council approved $260,400 of your money to save the salamanders.
Angle was at his son's high school graduation, and did not vote.
When this first came up before Northampton County Council, in early June, ideological opposites Ann McHale and Ron Angle were both concerned about the high cost, and the matter was tabled. But two weeks later, with Angle MIA, Council was told the property had already been appraised at $6,932 per acre, and would be appraised again down the road.
Council bought it, for a few weeks anyway. Fortunately, Angle came to the rescue last Thursday … but we’ll get to that a little later.
Lack of independent appraisals
What Lott failed to make clear was that the appraisal of the properties were hardly independent. The Conservancy, which is already seeking taxpayer funds and has a vested interest, hires these appraisers.
I looked over the two appraisals done for the 130 acres under consideration. They were done without 2010 census figures and assume that this area is experiencing rising incomes and property values. The only thing that has been rising is the unemployment rate, which has gone from 4.4% in 2007 to 9.3% in 2010.
Another problem with these appraisals is that, incredibly, they use prime farmland sales to do comparables, including a recent purchase by Angle.
Finally, these appraisals fail to note that a 108-acre tract in these 130 acres, owned by Kirkridge, is already subject to a federal easement for the Appalachian Trail. That imposes severe restrictions on the entire tract, making it unattractive to a potential developer.
Independent appraiser: Get a second opinion
Baffled, I spoke to Chip Turtzo, a certified real estate appraiser with 40 years of experience in the Slate Belt.
"Like a doctor or anything else, you'd want to get a second opinion," he said.
Speaking hypothetically, Turtzo added that prime farmland in this area is worth around $5,000 per acre; swampland is worth considerably less.
But what the hell does a state-certified appraiser with 40 years experience know, damn it?
Council Reverses Course
That brings us back to last Thursday's Council meeting. With Angle back in action and no environmentalists in the peanut gallery, there was a sudden about face.
Angle proposed halting any action unless two independent appraisals are done, and Ann McHale added an amendment demanding that the landowner pay for them.
Why Doesn't the Nature Conservancy Buy This Land?
Executive John Stoffa thinks it might be too late to stop this grant, but if it's possible, it should be cut off.
After all, the Nature Conservancy has more than ample resources to buy the property on its own. It raised over $637 million in 2009, with $69 million in fundraising expenses.
It's safe to say that the Conservancy is green in more ways than one.
We're not. I'm all for open space, but have a problem with open wallets.
Carolyn
10:16 am on Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Go Bernie! Let the developers pay this land, drain it, and asphalt the whole thing. We need more malls, roads, and homes for Manhattan computers. The environment be damned. Or not.
Bernie O'Hare
12:13 pm on Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Carolyn, I attended last night's meeting at UMBT, and heard the Chairman of the BOS state that he did an overlay of the zoning maps on this tract, and it is undevelopable. Why on earth would you want to wast taxpayer money to buy land that can't be developed in the first place? Why would you spend out money to get a conservation easement on land that already is encumbered by a federal easement for the Appalachan trail? Assuming you want to preserve this area, why wouldn't you insist on truly independent appraisals, not ones by the Nature Conservancy?
We have a limited amount of land, to be sure. But we also have a limited amount of money.
Carolyn
3:49 pm on Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Bernie, you are right. No need to take offense. I don't want to spend taxpayers' money on a pig-in-a-poke. On the other side, and this may not be the best example, but sometimes it is OK to spend the money if it is the right thing to do. I would rather at least start out on the side of land conservation. Too many don't.
Bernie O'Hare
9:31 pm on Tuesday, July 12, 2011
I agree that we need to preserve land. There are several components of open space on the County level - farmland preservation, environmentally sensitive land and parks. I feel that every penny spent on parks (for swimming pool repairs) and to buy environmentally sensitive land (already under protection) has been wasted.
In the meantime, farmers are forced to sell or go broke. Let's spend the money where it makes a difference, and at prices that are fair. And instead of preserving little 20-acre farmettes for people who are already wealthy, let's conserve working farms.
Carolyn
10:55 am on Wednesday, July 13, 2011
OK - I'm confused. Educate me. Are they proposing spending money to preserve farmland? I thought this was wetlands and they wanted to preserve it for wildlife. Am I mislead?