|
 The appended article is NOT about the US Forest Service holding a real bake sale. The Forest Service is instead, and once again, selling public lands and keeping the cash.
The trend which has the USFS selling lands and keeping the cash did not begin with the passage of legislation in 2002, as this article reports. In my hometown of Bend, Oregon the USFS and special interest groups --with the full and active support of our elected officials-- broke the ground that led directly to the current state of affairs.
We Oregonians created, supported and ultimately passed legislation which authorized the Forest Service to sell 8 parcels of public lands in our State and to use the proceeds to construct a nice new administrative facility, soon to be built in my town.
Appended is the appeal Wild Wilderness issued on April 28, 2000. In it, we reached out to the community with the hope of nipping this trend in the bud. We didn't think the USFS should be selling the farm to pay the heating bills. We failed to convince others that this was a bad idea and today you are seeing the consequences.
Scott
--- begin quoted ---
Forest Service wants to sell land between Mesa and Powderhorn Resort
By Marija B. Vader - Grand Junction Correspondent
Glenwood Springs, CO Colorado
January 30, 2008
GRAND JUNCTION - The U.S. Forest Service wants to sell to the highest
bidder 160 acres of public land that lies between Mesa and Powderhorn.
The land has Highway 65 frontage and a creek flowing through it.
The land might be sold through the Internet auction house eBay, said Corey Wong, Forest Service public service staff officer.
Officials from the Grand Mesa, Uncompahgre and Gunnison National
Forests want to take the action as part of the Congress-approved Pilot
Conveyance Program to help pay for maintenance projects in the national
forest.
Officially, the decision to sell hasn't yet been made. A Forest Service
official in the regional Lakewood office expects to render that
decision this spring, said Wong. If the federal agency decides to sell,
the decision on how to auction it, whether in pieces or a single
parcel, will follow.
Forest Supervisor Charlie Richmond said the land may be worth as much
as $1.6 million. That money could be used to replace the aging regional
forest office in Delta that's now rented.
"We may use a portion of it for seed money to build a building in Delta
of our own," Richmond said. "Portions of it will improve the offices we
do own," like buildings in Paonia and Gunnison.
The public has until late February to comment on the environmental
assessment, which can be seen at the Forest Service website,
www.fs.fed. us/r2/gmug/policy/, under Coon Creek Administrative Site.
Interest high Already, interest in the property is high among real estate agents in the Mesa area.
"Between Powderhorn and Mesa is prime property," said Shirley Knutson,
who owns and operates Front Porch Realty in Mesa with her husband,
Jack. "I'm sure there will be a lot of people interested."
Recent sales of 35-acre parcels nearby have brought between $250,000
and $350,000, she said. Of the land there, most is buildable and most
have incredible views, she said.
"We don't have very much private land to begin with. It's getting
harder to come by," said Jack Knutson, who estimated the land's worth
between $1 million and $1.5 million.
Someone could buy the entire 160-acre parcel and subdivide it through
the county planning process into parcels smaller than 35 acres, said
Burt Dole of Dole & Associates Realty, also of Mesa. But that might
be difficult because of opposition among the neighbors and because of
the Powderhorn development plan, approved in 1986, which limits
development along Highway 65.
"The Forest Service is still requesting public input on the sale of
that property. People need to contact the Forest Service and say 'no'
or 'hell no' or whatever comment they may have," said Dole.
Dole espoused the "hell-no" viewpoint.
"I'd say hell no. I really would. We don't need to be selling off our
Forest Service or BLM grounds," Dole said. "Funny to hear that from a
Realtor. ... It shouldn't be."
Dole said the amount of public land should be expanding, not decreasing.
History In 2002, Congress approved selling isolated Forest Service
properties no longer being used and that are difficult to manage. The
money must be used on backlog maintenance issues for administrative
buildings.
This 160 acres had been used as a ranger station in the early 1900s and then as a Civilian Conservation Corps Camp from 1940-42.
Under this program, money gleaned from the sales cannot be used for recreation.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Silver"
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2000 2:15 PM
Subject: Need Oregon Groups to Oppose Public Land Sale Legislation
Wild Wilderness, the Juniper Group of the Sierra Club (perhaps the
Sierra Club National) and several additional organizations are looking
for groups willing to be listed as opposing SB 1936 (Bend Pine Nursery
Land Conveyance Act).
We will be going to press very soon with a informational mailing and
would like to be able to include the names of as many Oregon based
organizations/groups as possible.
S.B. 1936 is a piece of SPECIAL INTEREST legislation that would result
in the sale of eight parcels of publicly owned National Forests lands
throughout the State. Its purpose is to generate approximately
$8,000,000 in cash so that the Deschutes NF can construct a new
administrative site and visitor center.
S.B. 1936 involves the selling off (privatization) of public lands so
that the USFS can build the infrastructure it believes is required to
promote industrial strength recreation within Central Oregon.
S.B. 1936 takes from the American people and gives to the USFS.
Please join with us in opposing this legislation. Please drop us a note
saying your organization would like to be listed on our informational
flier.
Scott
Below is some additional information. The bill itself can be read at:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c106:S1936:
---- provided by a coalition member ----
We are a small coalition of individuals and community organizations from Deschutes Co., opposing SB. 1936 for the following...
The title is misleading, since properties across Oregon will be included in the sale.
Dale Administrative site-Umatilla NF
Springdale Administrative site-Mt. Hood NF
Alsea Administrative site-Siuslaw NF
Mapleton Administrative site-Siuslaw NF
Shelter Cove Resort-Deschutes NF
Crescent Butte-Deschutes NF
Sunriver Area-Deschutes NF
Bend Pine Nursery-Deschutes NF
The liquidation of public lands in outlying communities, to funnel
capital to a project in the fastest growing region in Oregon is
short-sighted; Robbing those communities of the opportunity to benefit
from their local resources in the future. Also setting a poor precedent
for public land use, and USFS scope.
Allows for transactions to take place prior to land-value assessments,
or the NEPA process, and regardless of regional appropriateness.
Continues the chronic under-assessment of public land values, and
disregards new economic models showing the value of intact wilderness
areas, over their lifecycle, far outweigh property valuation by the
square foot.
It creates a general slush fund for USFS use, with no public input on fund usage.
It allows for the construction of 53,000 sqft. of undefined 'visitor
facilities' outside Bend's UGB, and in Deschutes National Forest. We
assume that means concessionaires, setting the stage for yosemite-like
'eco-tainment' enterprise.
Leading to increased traffic impact in and around Bend, forcing the
controversial southern auto crossing of the Deschutes River, and
encouraging tourists to drive deeper and deeper into our national
forests.
Bend MetroParks traded away a net loss of acreage in 1999. There is no
guarantee that BMP will even afford the pine nursery, or on final land
use on any of the privatized properties.
Installation of a visitor center will obviously incur many operational
costs, over the years, and, we fear, would lead to a 'fee-for-use'
situation. As with the trail demo program, the USFS seems intent to get
us to pay for something we already own.
We are putting together an informational mailing package, for the
general public, as well as an expanded package to send to
representatives and interested orgs. Let us know if we can include you
in our list of supporting organizations. Also, any planning or
organizational input would help much. Thanks for your time.
|
- Privatization 
