|
Q: I've been following your columns and the "scarcity" theme
keeps coming up as an important factor because the Forest Service
owns so much of the land in the area. Don't you think that if things
get so bad that the Forest Service will open land up for development?
A: This question itself conjures up lots of ideas and
thoughts. The real answer is that it would take a major shift in
policy by the Forest Service and nobody thinks this is likely to
happen anytime soon, and probably not in our lifetimes. And you can
bet the environmental groups would have objection. A question I would
ask in response is "What would be their motivation to do so?"
We all know what the basic charge of the Forest Service is
(or do we?) They oversee the recreational opportunities in our
National Forests and manage the ecosystems. They have been forced
into the real estate business because all over the country there are
developers and communities who want to acquire land they have control
of. And in turn the Forest Service wants to gain control of sensitive
properties in private ownership. Their charge is to "trade" property
so in theory there is no net loss in public land. They can add or
subtract some cash to complete a transaction. Lately, it has become
popular for groups like the Western Land Group or American Land
Conservancy to act as middle men to bridge the more immediate needs
of developers and communities to the slower, more methodical and
bureaucratic ways of the Forest Service.
Here in Mono County the Forest Service is trying to regain
public ownership of a number of parcels including some large
developable pieces as well as small, random, relatively desolate
parcels. Government ownership in our county is at 94% and there is
definitely a trend towards more property returning to public
ownership rather than being privatized. Typically larger pieces of
privately owned (and considered "higher quality") property are being
traded for smaller (and lesser quality) but strategically located
pieces of publicly owned property.
The most recent notable exchange was for the college property
on Meridian Blvd. By all measures this was a quick and effective land
exchange destined to benefit this community for many years to come.
Southern California Edison donated property near Lee Vining to the
College Foundation that the Forest Service wanted. Thanks to the all
around public benefit (and with no profit motive involved) and the
very unique position that the late Glenn Thompson had in facilitating
it, it was successful property exchange.
The trade most of hope gets completed soon is for the
additional nine holes of the Snowcreek golf course. This process has
been going on forever. To the point of your question, one of the
obstacles was to assure the land being traded for the course could
not be developed with properties for sale. And for the land to be
developed for the public's recreational benefit including affordable
green fees.
One of the local trades likely to happen and certainly will
effect housing in our area is the so-called Shady Rest parcel. (Does
anybody remember the referendum?) This large piece of isolated Forest
Service land in the middle of town was planned years ago for
"affordable" or deed restricted housing. Part of the plan calls for
zero-lot line duplex style homes that would be offered for sale but
their values (and their resale values) would be set by an inflation
index.
It was envisioned that these homes would be ideal for middle
income folks that couldn't afford market rate homes. (The planners in
this Town did anticipate the tremendous rise in residential real
estate values and do have housing requirements on the big
developers.) The build-out of this housing project would greatly
alleviate (not solve) the housing problem in town.
And there are other land exchanges in the works. All of the
developers and community representatives involved have the long and
arduous task of dealing with the Forest Service in this land exchange
process. There in lies the real answer to your question. People have
literally died while waiting for a trade to be completed. Most people
just don't have the patience-or have more attractive pursuits. And
again, this process isn't likely to change. The federal government
has many more important issues to deal with. Then throw in the
obstructions the environmental and "no growth" groups will raise.
The real answer is to build enough employee housing and deed
restricted "affordable housing" to make the community functional and
not destroy the free market housing sector at the same time. In the
meantime, we all get to enjoy the fact that in five minutes on a bike
or a pair of skis we can be in the middle of the vast public
playground that surrounds us-a treasured amenity in a mountain resort
community.
|
