| Meddling with property rights
(Note from WB: Since when are the 'Land Trust' companies concerned about property rights? SINCE WE ARE ON TO THEM, THAT'S WHEN. This is 'pro' conned-servation easements article, calling those that raise the warning 'critics.' Tell the loggers about the 'access' that is 'almost always' allowed -- they know the lie that statement is!) March 30, 2003 Frank Miele, Managing Editor 406-758-4447 The Daily Interlake 727 East Idaho Street Kalispell, MT 59901 To submit a Letter to the Editor: edit@dailyinterlake.com A bill aimed at restricting conservation easements is being sold as a "consumer protection" measure that will ensure continued natural resource uses on private lands. But House Bill 725, sponsored by Rep. Rick Maedje, R-Fortine, strikes us as an unnecessary, meddling affront to property rights. Among other things, it would outlaw easements that limit "natural resource uses," restrict the use of federal money in acquiring easements, and require that easements be approved by local governments. The bill also might interfere with federal tax breaks that come with conservation easements. Some conservation easement critics lay out a shaky argument that land trusts are flimflam outfits in the business of removing private land from natural-resource uses, and that property owners are somehow duped by land trust organizations. On the other hand, we have practical examples of conservation easements all around the Flathead Valley that tell a contrary story: easements that are clearly supported by the public as well as private property owners. Most local conservation easements are aimed at preserving open space. They often allow for public access and they almost always allow for traditional uses, such as timber management and agricultural operations. The main thing they thwart is residential or commercial development. The slogan for one prominent land trust is simply, "Cows, not Condos." The best example is the ongoing effort to protect the Swan River's "Wild Mile" corridor just outside Bigfork. Through conservation easements, this land is being protected for public access and aesthetic purposes. And the effort has overwhelming support in the Bigfork area. A conservation easement applying to a huge swath of Plum Creek Timber Co. property in the Thompson and Fisher river drainages was somewhat controversial because of its cost, which was partly covered by federal money. But the easement essentially protects the valleys from residential and commercial development, while maintaining public access and guaranteeing the land will remain part of Montana's timber base. There are many other examples of conservation easements maintaining traditional uses and public interests. We don't need county commissioners weighing the merits of conservation easements. Nor do we need to make it more difficult for private property owners to protect their land as they see fit. |