Trouble in the Christmas Mountains?

[SHANEA]

From the NPS BIBE website...

I guess Texas wouldn't be this generous today.

Did You Know?
In 1942 the state of Texas spent $1.5 million dollars to acquire privately-owned
lands in the Big Bend area in order to create the park. Paying between $1-5
dollars per acre, the state obtained all but 2% of the original acreage
of the park in this manner.
more...
http://www.nps.gov/bibe/historyculture/tgttn.htm

[Boojum1]

Update from AAS
http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/green/index.html

Home > Salsa Verde

Some post-Christmas Christmas Mountains notes
By Asher Price | Tuesday, January 15, 2008, 06:15 PM

The National Park Service is angling to submit a proposal to take over the Christmas Mountains tract, out by Big Bend, in early February. The General Land Office has put the land up for sale.

On Saturday, the San Antonio Express-News reported that Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, said that the Conservation Fund, which donated the Christmas Mountains tract in 1991, may buy it back from the General Land Office and give it to the U.S. Park Service.

Andy Jones, the Texas state director for the Conservation Fund, tells me that’s somewhat overstating the case. Conservation buyers (who wish to remain anonymous) have approached the Conservation Fund about pooling some money to buy the land, but Jones’ group is waiting to see how the General Land Office handles the National Park Service’s proposal.

But he did say that the Conservation Fund would “gladly facilitate anything that transpires after the plan is turned in by the Parks Service. We’re prepared to work with folks and get in the hands of the Parks Service however we can.”

Could the Conservation Fund stomach buying land it had already donated to the state?

“There’s no question the General Land Office has a fiduciary obligation to get some return on its property,” Jones said, referring to the fact that the office raises money for the state’s permanent school fund. “If we had to buy the land, that would be unfortunate.”

One other thing: Jones said the Richard K. Mellon Foundation, the rich Pittsburgh foundation that bankrolled the purchase and donation (through the Conservation Fund) of the Christmas Mountains in the first place, is not one of the anonymous conservation buyers. Jones says the foundation is not very happy with the state of Texas right now.

[SHANEA]

It's been awfully quiet on the Christmas Mountains front.  I wonder if Patterson ever got out there to visit it and walk it over with Wellman?  I'll email the GLO to find out.

Group may re-buy Christmas Ranch

Just a little expansion on the information in the prior post.

[RichardM]

The snow is melting on the Christmas Mountains
By Asher Price | Friday, February 1, 2008, 08:45 AM

On Tuesday the School Land Board is probably going to decide the fate of the Christmas Mountains, a 9,000-odd acre tract of property adjacent to Big Bend National Park. The school land board will weigh whether to go through with a sale of the property. General Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson has been under a lot of heat for his decision to put the property up for sale. The future of the property, which the American-Statesman started writing about back in August, has been something of a soap opera.

My crystal ball prediction: The state will sell the land, but not to either of the two current bidders. Instead, it will sell the land to a group of anonymous conservation buyers who have said they can round up cash; the conservation buyers will then donate the land to the National Park Service. (The NPS has finished up a proposal for the land that outlines trail opportunities hooking up the tract to Big Bend.)

John Poindexter, one of the two current bidders of the land, rates his chances at ending up with the property as “infinitesimal.”

“If those folks make the acquisition, I’m content for that to occur,” he told me last night, meaning a set of conservation buyers. “I’m satisfied if the GLO does what’s best for taxpayers and for the public interest.”

The interesting question, in my mind, is how much the land will cost. Can the General Land Office, which controls the land, sell the property for some token amount, like ten bucks? Or does it interpret fiduciary responsibility to mean $650,000? The question is an interesting one because the land was donated to the GLO in 1991 by the Conservation Fund: Will conservation buyers assembled by the Conservation Fund now have to lay down a bunch of moolah for the land it once donated? And if the conservation buyers don’t have to put down much, is that unfair to Poindexter and the other bidder — a couple from Dallas — who have put down somewhere in the ballpark of $60 per acre?

[RichardM]

Editorial in Austin American-Statesman:
Up for bid: Donated land, Texas’ honor

[SHANEA]

Thank you Mr. Moderator.  Good read.  I agree with the provision that Texas agreed to the terms and should do the gentlemanly thing of upholding the original spirit of the deal. 

[BigBendHiker]

Here's the latest...

School land board rejects private offers for Christmas Mountains
Decision moves board step closer to sending 9,269-acre tract to National Park Service
By Asher Price
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF


Tuesday, February 05, 2008

Rejecting two private bids for the Christmas Mountains tract early Tuesday afternoon, the school land board signaled its seriousness about shifting the 9,000-odd acre piece of property to the National Park Service.

"Over the last several months, a lot has developed," is how Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson explained the rejection of the two private bids.


The main development has been a proposal, made public Friday, by the National Park Service to incorporate the rugged piece of property into the adjacent Big Bend National Park.

The General Land Office had put the land up for auction last year and winnowed the bidders for the land down to two. But in November, facing pressure from politicians and editorial boards across the state, the school land board decided to give the National Park Service 90 days to put together a proposal for the land.

The school land board did not take action on the national parks proposal because of a technicality with its agenda posting.

David Herrmann, a member of the school land board, said the proposal played some role in the rejection of the two bids.

"We're not bitterly disappointed," said Mike Craddock, a Dallas lawyer who had planned on taking conservation measures to preserve the land and provide free permits for hiking on the land. "This wasn't unexpected."

The other bid was by John Poindexter, who owns a West Texas resort.

The General Land Office was given the Christmas Mountains land by the Conservation Fund in 1991.

The National Park Service asked the General Land Office to donate the land or to sell it to a third party, which in turn would donate it. The land office would funnel money from the deal to the $24.5 billion Permanent School Fund, which is for the state's public schools.

"The school land board has to look at its fiduciary duty to the schoolkids of Texas," Bill Warnick, the board's general counsel, said. "Whether it was given for money or not given for money, it's now part of the permanent school fund land."

The Conservation Fund says it is assembling conservation buyers to buy the land back from the General Land Office and then donate it to the National Park Service. (The Pennsylvania-based Richard King Mellon Foundation bought the property for about $250,000 in 1991 before partnering with the Conservation Fund to donate it to the General Land Office.)

But in an exchange during the public comment period, before the land board made its decision, Patterson, who had championed private stewardship of the land, suggested that conservation buyers may not understand that the land is already under strict conservation easements. The easements, retained by the Conservation Fund when the land was donated to the General Land Office, hold that the property's owner cannot build new roads on it; graze animals on it; or run utility lines on it, among other things.

"To buy land to be protected that is already protected is just bizarre," Patterson said before the school land board's decision, during a public comment period. "How can (the Conservation Fund) in good conscience ask people to write a big check for land that's protected? And would that not be a monumental waste of money when there's land over here that needs protecting?"

"If there are donors willing to provide the money, it's their decision," responded Ken Kramer, the director of the Lone Star chapter of the Sierra Club.

asherprice@statesman.com; 445-3643

[SHANEA]

Thank you BBH!  Good read!

What is bizarre is Patterson...

"To buy land to be protected that is already protected is just bizarre," Patterson said before the school land board's decision, during a public comment period. "How can (the Conservation Fund) in good conscience ask people to write a big check for land that's protected? And would that not be a monumental waste of money when there's land over here that needs protecting?"

[russco]

Im a plain person so I just don't understand why the conservationists with money don't partner with tpwd so the land can be hunted and hiked! That would make gun-weilding patterson happy and conservationists and hikers alike happy and we (mostly)could all just be mfing happy! I think... DAMN POLITICIANS MAKING EVERYTHING A BIG TaDOO

[presidio]

Im a plain person so I just don't understand why the conservationists with money don't partner with tpwd so the land can be hunted and hiked! That would make gun-weilding patterson happy and conservationists and hikers alike happy and we (mostly)could all just be mfing happy! I think... DAMN POLITICIANS MAKING EVERYTHING A BIG TaDOO

Because there is a vocal subset of people who just won't be happy unless the NPS is in charge of it, despite other federal agencies being better equipped to manage it as you suggest. Somehow they feel it isn't as 'good' if some other agency is running the show. Note to subset: yeah, I know what the grant conditions are. When Patterson eventually sells it to a private party, you can tell me then how that was a better deal for everyone.

[Casa Grande]

 

Patterson said he would open to the public a one-mile stretch of the land connecting the Christmas Mountains to Big Bend park.

http://www.elpasotimes.com/ci_8189635?source=most_emailed

[Ay Chihuahua!]

Im a plain person so I just don't understand why the conservationists with money don't partner with tpwd so the land can be hunted and hiked! That would make gun-weilding patterson happy and conservationists and hikers alike happy and we (mostly)could all just be mfing happy! I think... DAMN POLITICIANS MAKING EVERYTHING A BIG TaDOO

russco,

Shanea can probably tell you better than I can, but my understanding is that this property is land-locked with no road going into it.  If TP&W got it, the state would have to utilyze eminant domain and take property from an adjacent land owner to build a road to it.  That proposition requires both money and pissing off property rights folks all accross the state (not to mention the owner of the land that was taken)...a lose/lose proposition for everyone involved.  The property would also need to be maintained, which costs more money that TP&W does not have.

The beauty in all of this is that BBNP is one of the adjacent land owners.  The property could be simply absorbed into the already existing park.  Its the plan that makes the most sense.  And in addition...am I the only one here who thinks that Patterson has other unmentioned motives? 

[russco]

Im a plain person so I just don't understand why the conservationists with money don't partner with tpwd so the land can be hunted and hiked! That would make gun-weilding patterson happy and conservationists and hikers alike happy and we (mostly)could all just be mfing happy! I think... DAMN POLITICIANS MAKING EVERYTHING A BIG TaDOO

russco,

Shanea can probably tell you better than I can, but my understanding is that this property is land-locked with no road going into it.  If TP&W got it, the state would have to utilyze eminant domain and take property from an adjacent land owner to build a road to it.  That proposition requires both money and pissing off property rights folks all accross the state (not to mention the owner of the land that was taken)...a lose/lose proposition for everyone involved.  The property would also need to be maintained, which costs more money that TP&W does not have.

The beauty in all of this is that BBNP is one of the adjacent land owners.  The property could be simply absorbed into the already existing park.  Its the plan that makes the most sense.  And in addition...am I the only one here who thinks that Patterson has other unmentioned motives? 

Thanks for the insight. Inquiring minds want to know you know! I wander if one of those unmentioned motives might resemble something like the Rio Nuevo Ltd. deal where they tried to squander the water out from under everyone around? Don't remember where I read it (may have been here.. I read too much junk!)but I think I recall a quote from a story where Patterson was at a packed town hall meeting with about 500 angry landowners and he saif "we're not here to nuke you, were here to take your water.".....interesting guy.
The BIG Bend Gazette has some interesting articles on the subject and a great editorial.

[SHANEA]

Christmas Mountains tract should be a gift for hunters

All we are talking about here is a measly 9,000 acres of land locked land.  With all of the hunting opportunities  in West Texas from the massive BGWMA, BBRSP, Elephant Mountain, etc. this is a non issue.

So, the way I understand it, Patterson is going to use the force of the GLO office to force imminent domain to force land owners to grant access to the Christmas Mountains so that hunting can occur.  So, we are going to trample property rights with 2nd amendment rights.   

You know, I didn't know the GLO was responsible for enforcing 2nd amendment rights?  So, from now on, anytime anyone buys any land from the GLO, the GLO and Patterson should insist on a clause that hunting and gun possession will be allowed.

Thus, the GLO sale of the land on the Blanco river - whomever purchases this must allow hunting and if any office buildings or anything else is built, they must allow the concealed possession of firearms and are forbidden from posting a sign that concealed firearms are not allowed on this property.

General Land Office near sale of tract on Blanco River. Land is warbler habitat; some is in aquifer recharge zone.

Also, I want to see Patterson pack his heat into the Austin Bergstrom Airport and stroll past TSA as he goes to get on an airplane.  When they stop him, I want to hear him demand his 2nd Amendment rights to carry a weapon aboard a commercial airliner.  When Patterson goes to the Whitehouse/Congress, etc. - I want to see him carry his concealed weapon past the secret service - heck, Patterson, if you are going to make a statement about 2nd Amendment rights, then do it right.  Go all the way baby.  Don't just hold the Christmas Mountains hostage.

[Ay Chihuahua!]

Also, I want to see Patterson pack his heat into the Austin Bergstrom Airport and stroll past TSA as he goes to get on an airplane.  When they stop him, I want to hear him demand his 2nd Amendment rights to carry a weapon aboard a commercial airliner.  When Patterson goes to the Whitehouse/Congress, etc. - I want to see him carry his concealed weapon past the secret service - heck, Patterson, if you are going to make a statement about 2nd Amendment rights, then do it right.  Go all the way baby.  Don't just hold the Christmas Mountains hostage.

That's beautiful!!