Trouble in the Christmas Mountains?

[SHANEA]

General Land Office weighs Big Bend-area sale

I believe this is within or really close by Terlingua Ranch.

General Land Office weighs Big Bend-area sale
Foundation that gave Texas land opposed to sale
By Asher Price
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Saturday, August 25, 2007

Land adjacent to Big Bend is on the State of Texas' auction block, and the sale is being opposed by the conservation groups that donated it to the state in the first place.

In 1991, the state accepted a gift from the Conservation Fund of 9,269 acres in the Christmas Mountains, on the northwestern border of Big Bend National Park.
This week, the General Land Office closed bidding on the sale of the land, including significant restrictions. It could fetch upward of $50 an acre.

The office received six bids and is scheduled to announce a winner in mid-September, but this month the fund sent the land office a letter saying that it is "opposed to a sale to a private user."

The deed with which the land was donated to the state holds that the land office can sell the property only after offering it to the state Parks and Wildlife Department and to the National Park Service, and only if the fund approves the sale.

"It was the hope . . . that this land would be made available to the general public for hunting and other recreational uses," Richard Erdman, executive vice president of the Virginia-based Conservation Fund, wrote in the Aug. 8 letter.

Mike Watson, an officer with the Richard King Mellon Foundation, which paid for the land and donated it to Texas through the fund, put it more bluntly in an e-mail at the end of July to several people involved in conservation in Texas: If the land sale goes through "the state of Texas (should) not look to the R.K. Mellon Foundation for any future help."

The Pennsylvania-based foundation is a major player in land conservation donations, setting aside open space in all 50 states. The foundation, along with the fund, gave around 40,000 acres in the Chinati Mountains to state parks and wildlife.

The land office says that it cannot manage the land and it had asked the state and federal parks agencies, which have seen their funding stretched thin, to take control of it. Both declined.

"The problem we have is we're not in the park business," Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson said. Proceeds from the sale would go to the Permanent School Fund and public education, he said.

Patterson said he thinks the provision of the deed requiring approval for a sale is essentially unenforceable; the current owner of the property should not have to ask the previous owner for permission to sell it.

The fund and the foundation "say it's sending the wrong signal," Patterson said. "It may be a bias that only government can be good stewards of land. And that's simply not true."

Trespassing and poaching have already taken place on the land, and invasive species have taken root, Patterson said.

The land is gorgeous, said Terry Ervin, a property owner whose land abuts the Christmas Mountains land.

"Say some rich gentleman wanted his own hunting reserve in West Texas, it would make a great little hobby," Ervin said.

The land has three windmills that no longer work, relics from the property's ranching days; roads, many of which are impassable; and an artificial, seasonal lake, Ervin said.

The Christmas Mountains top out at about 5,700 feet above sea level, according to the Handbook of Texas, and the area's shallow soils support oak, juniper, mesquite, chaparral, cacti and scrub brush.

The fund points to 1991 letters from then-Land Commissioner Garry Mauro that said the "property is indeed a resource worth preserving for future generations."

"I have serious reservations about moving priceless unique land out of the state's portfolio," Mauro said in an interview Friday. "But if in fact we have solid conservation easements in place and an aggressive management plan in place, I think there's a good argument to be made that putting this land into the private sector with those kinds of constraints and those immediate goals would be an overall positive for the unique lands in Texas."

Under the restrictions, the land office retains water and mineral resources under the land. Off-road vehicles and utility lines are banned, as is the grazing of livestock. The buyer can build only a bare-bones lodge.

"The restrictions are so significant, that fundamentally, all you can do is look at the land," said John Poindexter , who runs Cibolo Creek Ranch Resort and who bid on the property.

Poindexter failed in 2005 to buy a parcel of Big Bend Ranch State Park. "It's handsome scenery, and it's a good conservation project."

The Conservation Fund and the Richard King Mellon Foundation declined to comment for this story.

Conservation experts say the sale points to some of the complexities of donating land.

"If I wanted to conserve my land, I would want to give it to parks and wildlife," said Carolyn Vogel, executive director of the nonprofit Texas Land Trust Council.

"If the foundation intended for conservation to be the major outcome and it got developed instead, it -could have an effect" on future donations to the state, Vogel said.

asherprice@statesman.com; 445-3643

General Land Office Selling Land Donated by Conservation Group

General Land Office Selling Land Donated by Conservation Group

The General Land Office is at it again. After the controversy over its proposed sale of land at Eagle Mountain Lake, the office agreed to the development of a park only after it became a political football in the last election. Now the office is proposing another controversial sale. It has taken bids for 9,269 acres of land in the Christmas Mountains adjacent to Big Bend National Park.

According to the Conservation Fund, who gifted the land to the state, the state was bound by deed restrictions and could not sell the land without the approval of the fund.

    "It was the hope...that this land would be made available to the general public for hunting and other recreational uses," Richard Erdman, executive vice president of the Virginia-based Conservation Fund, wrote in [an] Aug. 8 letter.

Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson stated that the deed restrictions were probably unenforceable.

One of the bidders is Houston businessman John Poindexter, of J.B. Poindexter & Co. Inc. and owner of nearby Cibolo Creek Ranch Resort. Poindexter has been trying to buy land in and around the area for some time now. He previously made news when he initiated the sale of 45,000 acres in Big Bend State Park. After a public outcry, that deal fell through.

Poindexter's statements imply he is only interested in conservation of the Christmas Mountains land.

    "The restrictions are so significant, that fundamentally, all you can do is look at the land."

Apparently, that's an argument we've heard before. Of the Big Bend sale, Poindexter had this to say.

    The 46,000 acres that the state considered selling him wasn't being sought to expand his resort facilities, as some critics asserted, he added.

    "The development potential — as was so frequently cited in the hearing — for this property is as close to zero as anything could reasonably be in the state," he said.
What he failed to mention was that an easement on the 46,000 acre sale allowed development of 4600 acres.

Regarding the Christmas Mountains land, the original donor, the Richard King Mellon Foundation, was disturbed enough about the pending sale of its land to issue this warning.

If the land sale goes through "the state of Texas (should) not look to the R.K. Mellon Foundation for any future help."

That sentiment was echoed by Carolyn Vogel of the Texas Land Trust Council.

    "If the foundation intended for conservation to be the major outcome and it got developed instead, it could have an effect" on future donations to the state.

Hat tip South Texas Chisme and B & B.

[BigBendHiker]

Interesting article...thanks for posting.  It does appear to be close to the Terlingua Ranch area...


BBH

[TheWildWestGuy]

Very interesting, seems a bit shady of the State to sell property specifically donated for conservation and that had restrictions on development.   I would be angry if I was the Mellon Foundation.   The State didn't have to accept the donation if they were not going to live up to their end of the bargin.   Seems like the BLM or some other Fed agency could do something with the land or maybe a County Park?   It's a shame to sell it to a private developer and never let the public have (cheap) access to it.  If Poindexter buys it he is probably eyeing it for another Cibolo-Creek type ultra-expensive resort for the rich and famous, exactly the opposite of what it was originally donated to the State for.   Kind of reminds me of the other State Scam where they sell TP&W plates for "non-game species" etc.. and then none of the money actually goes to TP&W but gets put into the "general fund"... TWWG

[Undertaker]

Several years ago the City of Houston wanted to drill on Memorial Park grounds donated as park to same, but foundation put a stop to it as violation of the donation provisions whould have reverted park to Hoggs, hope this would be the case here. Does sound a bit shady    :^o

[Roger, Roger]

If Poindexter buys it he is probably eyeing it for another Cibolo-Creek type ultra-expensive resort for the rich and famous, exactly the opposite of what it was originally donated to the State for.   TWWG

The sale restrictions specifically prohibit that type of development.  Like he said, all you can do basically is look at it.

[okiehiker]

The Christmas Mtns and surroundings are, to me, the most regrettable non-inclusion in BIBE.  If FOBB and others could not raise $40 or $50 an acre to arrange a swap of some kind with the General Land Office, then something is wrong.  

The land office and parks and wildlife have constitutionally differing views of land.  The land office is mandated to produce revenue for the state, in particular its schools.  Thus their primary focus should be revenue and "productivity."  The purpose of parks is preservation and enjoyment for the present and future generations.  These are almost mutually exclusive objectives.  It was certainly an error to deed land intended for conservation to the general land office in the first place, don't blame the land office for that, except that they might have reconsidered the offer in the first place, but that was probably a different administration.

Regarding the concern about it being anotherr set-aside for the rich and famous, the lask of development in no way preclueds its becoming exclusive, and in fact that is what will happen.  The average person will have no access whatsoever.  One can argue the merits of this, and whether it is in keeping with the intent of the donor, but it is nonetheless true.  Many wealthy people enjoy rustic retreats which is llikely what it would become.

[SHANEA]

State selling pristine mountain range in Big Bend

By R.A. DYER
rdyer@star-telegram.com

AUSTIN -- Over the objections of some conservationists, a pristine mountain range adjacent to the Big Bend National Park has been put up for sale by the Texas General Land Office.

The land offer comes after other controversial proposed sales of state-owned wilderness areas to private interests, including last year’s proposed General Land Office sale of 400 acres at Eagle Mountain Lake in Fort Worth, and the 2005 proposed Texas Parks and Wildlife Department sale of 46,300 acres at Big Bend Ranch State Park.

Those properties ended up staying in government hands after public outcry: The Eagle Mountain Lake property went to the Tarrant Water District and the Big Bend tract remained in the state parks inventory. The latest transaction, however, continues on course.

At issue is 9,269 acres containing the Christmas Mountains, which is next to the northwest corner of Big Bend National Park. The property was donated to the state in 1991 by the Virginia-based Conservation Fund and the Pennsylvania-based Richard King Mellon Foundation under the condition that it remain protected from commercial development.

To benefit school fund

It is not part of the parks system inventory, but rather is held for the Permanent School Fund, which finances public education, according to information from the General Land Office.

The agency put the property up for auction last month and closed bids last week, Land Office spokesman Jim Suydam said. He said that the agency is not equipped to act as a steward for the land and that various encumbrances placed on it will prevent commercial development.

"It's Commissioner [Jerry] Patterson's fiduciary duty to earn money on these lands -- it's an impeachable offense for him not to," said Suydam, explaining the decision to sell the land.

But some conservationists are expressing dismay and say the Christmas Mountains should remain in public hands. They note that it was donated with the public in mind.

"The entity donated this land for the express purpose of providing public land," said Luke Metzger, director of Environment Texas. "When all the experts say we need more public lands, the state is moving in the direction of giving lands away to private interests."

Suydam said the General Land Office offered the tract both to the National Parks Service and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department before putting it out to bid. The cash-strapped National Parks Service and the state parks department both declined the property.

The General Land Office later received six bids from the private sector, Suydam said. A special panel that includes Patterson will consider the bids in coming weeks, he said.

Officials with the Conservation Fund and the Richard King Mellon Foundation, which donated the land to the state, have declined to comment. But in e-mail correspondence reported by The Austin American-Statesman, Richard King Mellon Foundation officer Mike Watson wrote that if the auction goes through "the state [should] not look to the R.K. Mellon Foundation for any future help."

In another e-mail reported by the newspaper, Conservation Fund Executive Vice President Richard Erdman wrote that "it was the hope ... that this land would be made available to the general public for hunting and other recreational uses." Terry Ervin, a retiree who lives on 160 acres abutting the property, said that the Christmas Mountains reach about 6,000 feet in altitude and that the site includes some abandoned mines. He said the terrain is mostly desert, and with plenty of cactus -- but almost no water.

"It's very beautiful to look at," Ervin said. "Basically, it's very rugged and dry. In the past it had some water wells with windmills to water livestock." ... And there is an artificial lake that is seasonal and sometimes it has water." It's got some unique Chihuahua desert vegetation."

Use restrictions

The encumbrances that will be permanently enforced on the land would restrict almost any sort of development, including the construction of roads, Suydam said. The office released documents showing that the encumbrances would allow construction only of a rudimentary building for a land manager and would prohibit use of any off-road vehicles. The encumbrances permit hunting, but with restrictions.

As part of the bid process, the General Land Office also required potential buyers to submit land management plans.

Suydam said Patterson and the two other members of a panel known as the School Land Board could decide this month whether to accept one of the six bids or reject all of them.

"The land does not need to be owned by the state to be considered managed -- the permanent encumbrances greatly limit" what you can do with it, he said.
R.A. Dyer reports from the Star-Telegram’s Austin bureau. 512-476-4294

[SHANEA]

From the Austin American Statesman.

Editorial Makes Some Very Thought Provoking Comments.  I'm in total agreement.   

Texas a grinch for putting Christmas Mountains for sale

EDITORIAL
Texas a grinch for putting Christmas Mountains for sale
EDITORIAL BOARD
Tuesday, September 11, 2007

The School Land Board, led by Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, intends to sell 9,269 acres in the Christmas Mountains, just northwest of Big Bend National Park. The land was given to the state in 1991 as a gift from the Richard King Mellon Foundation, which donated it through the Virginia-based Conservation Fund.

The state should not sell the land, even though there would be considerable restrictions on how the it could be used by a new owner. A sale would set a terrible precedent for any future donor thinking about giving land to a state that might be more inclined to flip it to some well-heeled buyer.

Money from selling the land would go to a worthy cause, the Permanent School Fund, whose holdings are invested on behalf of public education. But the amount of money reaped from the land sale would make little practical difference to the huge school fund.

Besides, the land office says money isn't the point of the sale, but the need to take care of the land. Poachers and invasive species aren't being checked because no state agency has the means to do it. Patterson notes that his office is not in the parks business, and the Parks and Wildlife Department, which is, has been starved financially by the Legislature for years. Though Parks and Wildlife got a considerable budget boost this year, it will take years for it to recover, and it rightfully has higher priorities now than more land acquisition in far West Texas.

Once a new owner has a conservation plan for the Christmas Mountains in place, the public will gain some access to it, Patterson said. Major deed restrictions, he noted, will prevent any development — and most vehicles — on the land.

The General Land Office, which Patterson directs, reports six bidders, but details remain confidential. The School Land Board will meet Sept. 18 to award a bid.

Patterson wants to make this an ideological argument by attacking what he says is an idea that a private owner can't be as good a steward of the land as the government. In this case, he said, a private owner would be a better steward than the state has been.

Maybe, but only because those now in control of the state, in particular the Legislature, have refused to take responsibility for raising the taxes or fees necessary. It's rather like a parent neglecting a child for years and then complaining that his teeth are rotten.

But the solution isn't to sell the child or dump land that, some day, Texans who don't have the means to buy their own thousand-acre playgrounds might want back for their own use and enjoyment.

There's no pressing need to sell the land, which one of the bidders called "handsome scenery." Invasive species and poachers might do some damage now, but it's damage that can be reversed.

The real damage will occur if groups such as the Conservation Fund and the Mellon Foundation, which oppose this sale and might challenge it in court, spread the word across the nation that there's no point in giving Texas a part of itself back.

Patterson should stop the sale.

[SHANEA]

Highest Big Bend bid $652,000

That's $70.35 per acre.

Sept. 14, 2007, 11:01PM
Highest Big Bend bid $652,
State to consider six offers despite opposition to sale of wilderness land
By GARY SCHARRER
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau
AUSTIN — The top bidder for 9,270 acres of state-owned wilderness property near Big Bend National Park ruled out tourism or resort development for the rugged mountainous land that the State Land Board may sell over the donor's objections.

State officials Tuesday will consider six bids for the Christmas Mountains land ranging from $10,500 to $652,000.

"Under no circumstances would we open the Christmas Mountains to the public. The human traffic would be limited to scientific and educational study, management of the animal population, maintenance of roads for safety, emergency access and erosion control," according to the highest bid, from Louis A. Waters and family.

Waters is the retired chairman and CEO of Houston-based Browning-Ferris Industries and BFI International. He also has developed 10,000 acres of Hill Country as a sanctuary for rare and endangered species and is the principal owner of a 25,000-head feedlot in Starr County.

John Poindexter, chairman of Southwestern Holdings, has bid $509,828 for the property, according to proposals obtained by the Houston Chronicle.

None of the remaining bids exceeded $261,000.

Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson declined to discuss the bid proposals.

Poindexter, owner of the 30,000-acre Cibolo Creek Ranch, proposes to combine that with the nearby Christmas Mountains Ranch and convey both properties to a charitable foundation after he dies.

Because of strict deed restrictions on the Christmas Mountains property, Poindexter noted in his proposal that "cultural activities and tourism" are not feasible.

The area's proximity to the Big Bend National Park and the Big Bend Ranch State Park "suggest the potential for limited outdoor classroom, ecosystem and endangered resources education through interpretive programs," Poindexter said in his proposal.

Two years ago, state park officials rejected the Houston businessman's $2 million offer for more than 46,000 acres of Big Bend Ranch State Park after an outpouring of opposition.

Patterson has expressed confidence that the state will sell the property, near Terlingua.

The Conservation Fund donated the land to the state, anticipating that it eventually would end up with the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department.

Officials from the Conservation Fund have declined to publicly discuss the state's proposed sale of the Christmas Mountains. But they have expressed their sentiment in letters to Patterson obtained under the state's Public Information Act.

"We feel strongly that the state's intended sale of the Christmas Mountains sends the wrong message to foundations like Rick King Mellon, one of the few in the country which have focused substantial resources on land and water conservation to assure perpetual protection of these assets in the public domain," Conservation Fund Executive Vice President Richard Erdmann wrote in a July 16 letter to Patterson.

"Should this sale proceed, the Richard King Mellon Foundation has informed us that it would find it very difficult for it to consider the state as a potential beneficiary of any future conservation contributions on its part," Erdmann said in the letter to Patterson.

gscharrer@express-news.net

[Vince T]

Here's another article on the topic I found today-

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5140388.html

Vince

[STARLITDARKNESS3]

Here's a crazy idea.  If its not about money for the state, then what if all of us interested Benders pitched in; how much will that make.  Why couldn't this group of Benders form a Conservation group?  If what the state wants is someone that plans on preservation, then it sounds to me that a group Benders can do that too..   Its an idea, perhaps too late, perhaps not valid at this point.  I'm in.....

[rgibson]

Can not believe Patterson has joined Perry, Dewhurst and Craddock in yet another scheme. These four are the greatest traversty to hit Texas since the carpetbaggers the 1870's during Reconstruction.  They hardly speak to each other, just think where we would be if they joined forces.  Sounds like I am a Democrat.  No, independent that tends to vote more Republican.

btw, the Mellon Foundation also donated the Chinati Mountain area land to Texas.  Seems like around 30,000 acres of unique and in need of protection land.  The Chinati land is West of the Big Bend State Ranch Natural Area and is technically part of the park, though access technicalities were, and I guess still, restrict this unique area from being used.

The Mellon Foundation does things right when they donate land.  They  set up a perpetual trust to ensure a like amount of money goes to the county and School district as if it were taxed.  Forever!

This latest Patterson plan will have the effect  of other possible donators to think twice about donating land to Texas, forever.

Very familar with the Christmas and have hiked and explored most of it. Lived and owned land that joined.  Around 1990 when a Corpus Christi bank  foreclosed on the Christmas, I worked with the bank and the board of directors of Terlingua Ranch for the Board to buy the Christmas for $20 an acre.  It would be available for hiking and a natural area.  Terlingua Ranch surrounds the Christmas on all sides except what joins BBNP.

By phone, the Board seemed to all agree that it would be a great thing and they would pursue.  Attended my only board meeting ever when the next board meeting was held in Irving TX.  The subject of the Christmas was not on the aggenda and at breaks, would talk to the members and they all gave the Christmas lip service.  Nothing happened.  I was, and other supporters were livid.

The Christmas was then purchased by the Mellon Foundation thru the Conservancy Fund for $28 an acre to donate to the BBNP.  Unfortunatly, the Supt of the BBNP did not have a pair and did not want to take on the group that had fought the then recent Rosillas Ranch addition to the BBNP.

The land was then  donated to the Texas General Land Office for "safe keeping"  (ha) until the BBNP or the Texas Parks could sort it out.

There is much more behind the press info that I will share in a later post, but gotta go now.

[SHANEA]

Politics at it's best.

When I get a chance, I'll have to lookup and see the amount money these actors have/are contributing to the Perry war chest. 

Last time I talked to someone in an official capacity about Chinati Mountain, TPWD wanted it to become a WMA and the donors were against hunting on it. 

TPWD is now flush with money now.  Read last night that they are going to open back up the other 1/2 of Sommerville State Park to camping - 1/2 has been closed due to shortfalls.   

Texas already owns the land, just do a transfer of title to TPWD on the Christmas Mountains and leave it at that. 

I just detest the State of Texas selling off large partials of public land.

[SHANEA]

Editorial: West Texas ranch should stay public

Editorial: West Texas ranch should stay public
Web Posted: 09/17/2007 05:28 PM CDT
San Antonio Express-News

A plan by Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson to sell 9,000 acres of rugged West Texas mountain land to a private bidder should get a second look.

The austere Christmas Mountains Ranch, located near the small town of Terlingua in the Big Bend region, was given to the state in 1991 to be protected forever. Patterson is planning to sell the land to one of six private bidders, claiming the agency is not equipped to act as steward of the land. [SHANEA SIDEBAR:  I wonder how many other tracts of land fall into this category that can not be taken care of...]

The General Land Office was unable to sell the plot to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department two years ago, so Patterson has turned to the private sector. The State Land Board, which considers such sales, is scheduled to meet and possibly decide on the deal today.  [SHANEA SIDEBAR:  2 years ago TPWD was broke...  Why?  Should TPWD have to "buy" the land, - other than the perm. school fund?  Then again, why was the land donated to GLO in the first place?

We urge Patterson to postpone the vote and heed the request of Congressman Ciro Rodriguez, D-San Antonio, who represents the region and has sent a letter asking for time to consider alternatives.

It's true there are deed restrictions on the property that make the area difficult, if not impossible, to develop for either the state or a private entity.

But that is precisely the point.

The land was deeded to the state for the purpose of its "conservation and protection in perpetuity." The deed states that the donor, the Virginia-based Conservation Fund, must consent to any transfer of property.

Patterson said such restrictions are unenforceable in court.

If that is unenforceable, one wonders if the deed's other elements — such as a prohibition on commercial or industrial activity — are unenforceable, too.

According to Patterson's estimates, the state stands to make less than $500,000 from the sale. The state will, however, retain ownership of all oil, gas, coal and other mineral substances, as well as groundwater development and leasing rights.

As some have pointed out, the state's refusal to abide by previous agreements could discourage future donors from deeding land to the state for the purpose of preservation.

That would be troubling, considering that more than 95 percent of Texas land is privately held.

Patterson has a fiduciary responsibility to maintain Texas land to produce revenue for the state's Permanent School Fund, which is one of the Land Office's main functions.

But as a representative of the state, he should also ensure that lands donated to the people for preservation remain as such.

[SHANEA]

Wild Ed's Texas Outdoors

Monday, September 17, 2007
Christmas Mountains Decision Tomorrow

I recieved this email from Luke Metzger and wanted to pass it on to my readers. Wild Ed

Tomorrow, on Tuesday, Sept. 18th, at 10 AM, the School Land Board will meet in Austin to decide the fate of the Christmas Mountains. With more than 2,800 people sending emails to Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson and a flurry of media stories, the Commissioner and the School Land Board are under a lot of pressure to cancel, or at least postpone, the sale.
We need to make sure we have a good turn-out at the hearing to reinforce the message that the public opposes the sale of the Christmas Mountains to private interests.
WHERE: Stephen F. Austin Building
1700 North Congress Ave. Room #170
Austin, Texas 78701
WHEN: Tuesday, Sep. 18
Meeting starts at 10:00 A.M. (Christmas
Mountains is item 10 on the agenda).
If you can attend the meeting, please RSVP at:
https://www.environmenttexas.org/action/preserving-texas/cm-hearing?id4=ES
Many of you have received an e-mail from Commissioner Patterson explaining his position. Here is more information on why Environment Texas opposes this sale:
1) BAD PRECEDENT. The Richard King Mellon Foundation, which donated the land and is one of the nation's largest funders of open space preservation, is expressly opposed to the sale. The lease they signed with the state says GLO has to get their permission to sell, but Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson (who chairs the School Land Board) says that provision won't hold up in court so he's ignoring it. The Statesman reported that Richard King Mellon Foundation officer Mike Watson wrote that if the auction goes through "the state [should] not look to the R.K. Mellon Foundation for any future help." Other funders may follow suit.
2) NO GUARANTEES OF PROTECTION OR ACCESS. It's unclear who will monitor and enforce the development restrictions and there are no guarantees of future public access (particularly if the property is flipped down the road).
3) WE CAN DO BETTER. Patterson's argument is that since the government doesn't have the money to protect the land against poachers, invasive species and irresponsible public use (e.g. ATVs), the private sector will do a better job. But the state does have the money, they're just diverting it to other purposes. In addition to park entrance fees, the state parks system is funded through sales taxes on the purchase of sporting goods, which are estimated at $105 million in the current fiscal year. But the Legislature has put drastic caps on the amount received by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, diverting most of those dollars back into the state general revenue fund. After a public outcry, this spring the Legislature tripled funding for our parks for the next two years, primarily to catch up on an enormous backlog of repair needs. However, they dedicated no new money for land acquisition and failed to remove the cap on the sporting goods tax and set up a guaranteed fund for our
4) PART OF A PATTERN. This is not an isolated incident of the state selling public land to private interests. In 2005, TPWD proposed selling 46,000 acres of Big Bend Ranch State Park to Houston developer John Poindexter (one of the people bidding for Christmas mountains). In 2006, they proposed selling the Eagle Mountain Lake State Park (through GLO) in Fort Worth to developers to build condos. Both proposals were shot down after a public outcry. GLO is also pursuing an irresponsible investment strategy, buying up ecologically important open space and selling it to developers (e.g. the Fort Worth prairie and Hays county land on the Blanco river) and are reportedly considering selling property on North Padre Island which was purchased with federal money to be protected, but the protections have expired after ten years and is now hot property.
5) TEXANS WANT/NEED MORE PUBLIC LAND. Only about 5% of Texas land is publicly owned and according to a study by Texas Tech, "Texans are becoming increasingly frustrated about the lack of access to lands to experience nature". As the San Antonio Express-News pointed out yesterday, there's also a big lack of public hunting land. Selling off places like the Christmas Mountains moves in the wrong direction.
If you can attend the meeting, please RSVP at:
https://www.environmenttexas.org/action/preserving-texas/cm-hearing?id4=ES

Sincerely,
Luke Metzger
Environment Texas Director
LukeM@environmenttexas.org
http://www.environmenttexas.org
P.S. Thanks again for your support. Please feel free to share this e-mail with your family and friends.