In any discussion on any public policy issue, credibility is essential. Comments made or written by those who haven't "done their homeworkâ only serve to advance the cause of those who have the opposing view. I find that most of the negative comments made about the GLO/Christmas Mountains are made by folks who haven't done their homework. There's no requirement that you get your facts straight, it just makes you more credible.
It's your choice.
On the other hand, if I were an average Texan who only received my information from newspapers and blogs, I would likely be one of those folks who are critical of the GLO. In other words, the fact that most commenters are clueless on the Christmas Mountains issue ain't necessarily their fault. I have been involved in many controversial issues since I've been in elective office, and I've never experienced one in which the press has screwed it up more.
A few points to consider:
1. The idea that the Conservation Fund will be required to "repurchase" the Christmas Mountains is DOA. What a dumb idea, and it didn't come from the General Land Office. Is it not bizarre for the Conservation Fund to spend over .5 million dollars to protect land that is already protected in perpetuity by the conservation easements that are owned by that same Conservation Fund?
2. The terrible outcome envisioned by some that would result if
Poindexter, Craddock, [Louis] Waters [no relation to Gazette publisher]
or any other private owner owned the land is B.S. A transfer to any of
those parties would require public access, and frankly more public
access than would likely result if the tract were owned by the National Park Service. This
access would be maintained by perpetual easements that could be
enforced by the GLO, the Attorney General, or the Conservation Fund.
3. Access to the tract is problematic. The tract consists of approx 19
miles of perimeter boundary. Of that, 18 miles abut private property,
and there are no public roads or access points therein. One mile is
contiguous with the BBNP. Getting to that contiguous boundary entails a
walk of approx 8 miles from the park road (takes about 4 hours via Oak
Creek to Rough Run -- I've walked it) and once you get to the boundary
further movement into the tract is virtually impossible due to terrain.
At that point you can head aast and then north to get to a passable
draw, but in doing so you will be trespassing on private property.
4. It's been stated that "the state didn't have to accept the property if it couldn't live up to the deal." That is correct, but since Texas Parks and Wildlife Dept. and the NPS didn't want it in 1991, we (the Permanent School Fund, not the state) were the only option. Had we not accepted it, the land would be privately owned and likely subdivided now. Would that be a desirable outcome? We were an interim solution, and Commissioner Mauro did the right thing in accepting the property. I wish we had lined out a definitive exit strategy at that time however.
5. The "resort for the wealthy" argument is cute but doesn't bear up very well. What resort do you know of that can't have any electricity or utilities? Where would the golf course go? The conservation easements prohibit any change to the property except for a caretakers cabin w/o utilities. Hunting preserve for the "wealthy" is somewhat more plausible, but any conveyance would require some free public hunting as well. There's no hunting there now, although we're going to open it up for quail and dove this year. Access will still be a problem unless you're an adjacent property owner.
6. As to our living up to the agreement that requires us to offer
the tract to the NPS or TPWD before offering to a third party, and that
thirrd party sale requiring the approval of the CF, here are the facts:
the NPS and TPWD have turned down our offer to sell at appraised value
on multiple occasions. I've even offered "very favorable terms" to
TPWD.
I have letters from the NPS from 2004 and 2005 saying they don't want the property, and of course they didn't want it in 1991. That's 3 times the NPS has said no. After we solicited bids last fall, the NPS said they'd like to reconsider but submitted no timely bid. One wonders what changed to get their interest? The answer: nothing changed, they were just reacting to congressional interest generated by Environment Texas who were painting a picture of "wealthy elites buying a Texas treasure that would be forever lost to the people." Is the NPS really interested? Off the record conversations with NPS staff indicate that they still don't want the tract even if it were free. (It can't be free anyway because it's part of the Permanent School Fund inventory).
7. If the NPS and the TPWD don't want it, the only alternative is to keep it or sell to a third party. If we are to seek approval from the CF to sell to a third party, we need something for the CF to approve. We asked bidders to submit a dollar bid, conservation plan and a public access plan. Once we picked a winning bid, we intended to submit that to the CF for approval. If the CF refused to approve, we could still sell the property w/o the CF approval. All agree that the CF can't refuse our sale to a 3rd party, even the CF's attorneys. The legal term is "unlawful prior restraint. Regardless of what was printed in newspapers, it was never stated that we wouldn't seek the CF's approval; what was stated several times is we didn't have to have it, and we don't.
8. The lack of interest from the NPS is probably related to the
access issue. [Big Bend National Park Superintendent] Bill Wellman said if this were part of BBNP it would get
little usage. If you can't get to the peak of the mountain and enjoy
the view of BBNP (it is an impressive view), there's really no reason
to go there, and you can't get to the peak without trespassing. The GLO
will soon grant a public access easement that will allow non-vehicular
transit from BBNP to the Christmas Mountains via the contiguous
boundary with BBNP. That easement will remain in force regardless of
who owns the property in the future. That simple step equals the access
that would likely result if the BBNP owned the tract, but even then the
vast majority of the tract is not accessible. You can just get to the
boundary, and because of the terrain, not go much further.
In my view, its not really important whose name is on the title.
What's important is choosing the option that results in the best
stewardship and the best level of appropriate public access. To
Environment Texas, the Sierra Club and the folks who believe that
government ownership is the only answer to any land usage issue, it
is only about whose name is on the title.
I'm sure there's more I could cover, but enough for now. Again, if you
have any questions email me at jerry.patterson@glo.state.tx.us I
have no inclination to "blog" or "chat" online, but any response you
receive from me you can post on any site you wish.
Jerry Patterson
