Who'da Thunk It? The state offers the Christmas Mountains lease to Terlingua Ranch while the Ranch prepares to close the lodgeDuring a question and answer period at the July 25th meeting, after Patterson introduced the proposed lease, Ranch property owner Jane Brewster asked Patterson if the issue of road access to the public had been settled. Patterson responded that he did not know. Like a moth to a flame, controversy and the Christmas Mountains were again paired in discord. Attorney for POATRI Rudy Cano interjected that the matter of road access was before a District Court in Alpine and could not be discussed. Unsatisfied, Brewster pressed Patterson about the wisdom of even drafting a lease if such an important issue remained unsettled.
Diffusing tension with humor, Patterson responded, “I’m not an attorney, although I did sleep with one last night. My wife’s an attorney.” In humor Patterson continued, “I’m shocked and amazed there’s controversy out here.”
Patterson offered to return the $10 lease fee if there were any problems.
Property owner Tom Alex expressed concern about potential liability. What if a visitor to the tract broke a leg? What if a visitor started a campfire that got out of control and crossed over to private property? Patterson responded that under the proposed lease, future visitors would come to Terlingua Ranch Lodge to register for access to the Christmas Mountains and sign a release of liability.
SHANEA SIDEBAR: Ok, so the visitor did register and broke a leg or a fire got out of control? What does having signed in have anything to do with this? Who or what "agency" is going to be responsible for a SAR or fire suppression operation? Who will bear the costs - the State of Texas GLO or the Property Owners of Terlingua Ranch?
In February of this year the School Land Board voted unanimously to reject the two private bids, leaving the GLO only with the NPS proposal. After the board rejected the bids, one of the bidders who requested anonymity told the Gazette it was unlikely he would again bid for the property. While still on the table, the NPS proposal has languished since.
During the meeting on the 25th, Patterson reiterated his reluctance to having the Christmas Mountains become part of Big Bend National Park. Patterson said for the NPS to acquire the tract, he insists that firearms must be allowed, hunting not prohibited, public access addressed and mineral rights must conform to Texas state law, not federal or NPS laws and regulations. “Frankly we can provide equal or better access than the NPS,” said Patterson.
SHANEA SIDEBAR: Seems that there are now new "conditions" being added to any consideration for the Christmas Mountains to become part of NPS BIBE:
1. Firearms be allowed
2. Hunting not prohibited
3. Public access addressed
4. Mineral rights must conform to Texas state law, not federal or NPS laws and regulations.
I firmly believe the only way this is going to be resolved is for the 81st Texas Legislative Session to take it up.
Here is a blog entry from the
Big Bend Gazette BlogI have just finished reading through the Surface Lease that was presented by Mr. Patterson of the GLO on July 25 at the quarterly workshop to [the Property Owners Association of Terlingua Ranch, Inc.] for tentative approval. I am very concerned by several aspects of his proposal:
*All GLO employees and all persons they authorize including the general public, to all the same uses as granted to the property owners of Terlingua Ranch in addition to hunting privileges for the GLO and all persons that the GLO authorizes.
*POATRI can use the property for recreation which means low-impact, non-invasive uses including fishing, horseback riding, hiking, camping, birding, photography and like kind or related uses but not hunting.
*POATRI is required to remove and dispose of all trash generated by POATRI members and all GLO guests including the general public, at POATRI’s expense.
*POATRI must pay all the taxes assessed even though we are renting.
*POATRI must insure the property for an amount specified by the GLO. Does this mean that we are to insure against liability for the GLO’s general public and the GLO’s employees who use it?
*POATRI is required to set up a registration station under GLO’s guidelines that will be responsible to register all who visit the Christmas Mtns. including all POATRI members, GLO employee’s and the general public at POATRI’s expense. POATRI must also erect a sign at the intersection the ranch road and 118 directing the public down the ranch road.
*POATRI is solely responsible for any repairs, maintenance or replacement to the improvements that the GLO considers necessary at POATRI’s expense. Are roads considered improvements? This paragraph goes on to say that if POATRI does not comply with the GLO’s request that the GLO will do it and POATRI must pay the bill.
*Paragraph 2.05 gives license for any and all state employees and their representatives to access the Christmas Mtns. over and across any adjacent property (full perimeter) and further more it states, “Any aforementioned right of entry shall survive the termination of this contract.” I guess this means that they can use the property owner’s land from now on even if there is no contract in force.
*Paragraph 6.04 is very interesting: it charges POATRI with the sole responsibility of policing the entire Christmas Mountain range. It also states that at POATRI’s expense will comply with all state, federal, and municipal code rules, ordinances, etc.
*Special Conditions iii & iv says POATRI gives the GLO and the General Public access across Terlingua property owners land without the property owners’ okay, which includes the last three miles of the main road and access from the lodge to the Christmas Mountains.
Is the Road Commercial Use Report still effect? This report, published in POATRI’s 3rd Quarter 2002 newsletter states, in part: “All roads in Terlingua Ranch are private Property Owner roads, not public roads. POATRI owns no roads other than the roads that access the lodge and one water well. POATRI has ingress and egress to all other roads for maintenance & utilities.”
If in fact you [the directors] decide to sign the lease agreement as written what gives you the right to give the State of Texas to assess all adjacent lands to the Christmas Mountains from now on with out the permission of each and every land owner involved? They are not talking about roads as there are not roads across the majority of the lands at the present time; they are talking about crossing at any location they want.
This lease is very bad and is not cost effective for POATRI; we will get very limited benefits and very much liability. According to the lease, Paragraph 2.04 everyone, the general public included, has the same rights as POATRI members for use – why should POATRI sign an agreement that makes usliable for total operation at zero cost to the state as a matter of fact we have to pay them $10 for the privilege of being totally liable?
These are just the highlights of the bad stuff.
Jim Dunn
May, TX & Terlingua Ranch
con
