The answer, of course, depends on which acre we're talking about and who is appraising it. To Plum Creek, the commercial timber value of many of its forested lands in Montana is no longer as high as their value as developable real estate. For many Montanans, those same private acres, long cherished for their recreational access, may prove priceless as public lands.
The people of Montana also have a keen interest in saving some Plum Creek acres from development in order to minimize the hit to our pocketbooks. We taxpayers could end up on the hook to extend basic utilities and emergency services to hundreds of new homes built far from the nearest town, not to mention paying to protect these homes from wildfires, if it turns out that Plum Creek's road easement agreements with the U.S. Forest Service allow not only timber haulers to use those roads, but homeowners as well.
Last month, representatives from the Nature Conservancy and the Trust for Public Land stood with Plum Creek president and CEO Rick Holley and Montana Sen. Max Baucus in announcing a potential land buy involving an estimated 300,000 acres. The $500 million deal is expected to be financed in large part by a new tool tucked into a provision to the most recent federal farm bill. The provision, which was added by Baucus, could provide millions of dollars for land conservation programs by allowing for the sale of federal tax-credit bonds.
The 300,000 acres in Montana would also be partially financed through the fundraising efforts of these conservation groups. And state agencies would be expected to pony up many millions as well.
These same acres, of course, stand to increase in real estate value significantly if the road easement agreements are found to allow more than just timber trucks. An acre with a driveway is worth more, in terms of development potential, than an acre without.
The state has an interest in any easement changes that might increase the land's value. If the people of Montana want to be sure we're getting the biggest bang for our collective buck, we need to pay close attention to any changes in those agreements.
Unfortunately, public involvement in negotiations between Plum Creek and the Forest Service has been sorely lacking. The two had been meeting in private for months before the public caught wind, and even now Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey is refusing to provide a list the affected easements to the handful of western Montana counties that requested them.
It took direct intervention from Montana Sen. Jon Tester before Rey would even agree to meet with county commissioners. Tester also asked the Forest Service to stop negotiating with Plum Creek behind closed doors. Then last week, Tester aired the idea of involving a government oversight panel to decide whether those negotiations should have been made public.
In response, Rey told Tester he would provide a limited amount of information - sample easements negotiated in Idaho, for example - and hold off on making any formal announcements for a few weeks, though he seems eager to ink a deal before President Bush and his appointees, including himself, turn over their offices.
Clearly, Tester has been the speed bump needed to slow Rey down when it appeared he and the Forest Service would simply run right over county commissioners and the people of Montana. What we need now is to involve some more folks with the authority to give directions.
A government oversight panel is a good idea. We would also like to see Montana's other congressional delegates and state leaders start pushing for more public information - specific and meaningful information, including copies of the easements in question - and significant public involvement. Because if taxpayer money is going to buy Plum Creek land, then the question of how much an acre is worth is a very important question indeed.
|
 |
 |
Add your comment now! Write your comment in the form below.
(Email address is for verification only. If you'd like to email a story, look for the link above)