“We've been thinking about it for a while,” company spokeswoman Kathy Budinick confirmed Monday. “The controversy just seemed to be continuing, and we want to be responsive to those concerns.”
Missoula County officials and others argued that an amendment would have eased the way for residential development on Plum Creek lands.
Historically, those easements were thought to be narrow, for timber hauling only.
But Plum Creek and Rey maintain the historic easements allow for all sorts of access, including residential subdivisions.
For a year and a half, the company and Rey worked quietly to craft a legal amendment to the old easements, which would confirm that position. In return, Plum Creek agreed to require homeowner associations to share some road costs, and to implement wildfire reduction programs.
“Although we continue to believe that the easement amendment would be beneficial to the general public, given the lack of receptivity, we have decided not to go forward with the amendment,” Plum Creek President and CEO Rick Holley wrote Monday, in a letter to Missoula County.
The county was one of the first to raise the alarm last spring, when word of the closed-door negotiations leaked. Officials here worried the amendment could result in wholesale forest development. That would cut off forest access, they said, and would burden taxpayers with the costs of delivering urban infrastructure and firefighting to Plum Creek's far-flung neighborhoods.
The company is the nation's largest private landowner, with 8 million acres, including more than 1 million acres in Montana. Traditionally, those acres have been working forests, but in recent years, Plum Creek's real estate sale revenue tripled, to more than $330 million annually.
Nationwide, the company has targeted 2 million of its acres for sale in coming years, with an estimated value of nearly $6 billion.
The assurance of subdivision road access would have increased that value by a full $1 billion or more, according to some estimates.
Both Rey and the company held many meetings over the past six months, attempting to explain their position on the easements. Last week, Rey - a former timber industry lobbyist and political appointee whose term ends with the Bush administration's departure - stressed his intent to rule on the matter before leaving office.
But Plum Creek took the matter out of his hands on Monday, opting out of the controversial agreement. The amendment cannot be implemented without Plum Creek's participation.
“While this action may be disappointing to those who have expressed an interest in the public benefits of the proposed easement amendment,” Holley wrote, “we will continue to work with the U.S. Forest Service on road maintenance issues, including fire management.”
Holley added that public recreational access would continue on company lands; and he emphasized that Plum Creek would continue to use forest roads in accordance with the historic easements - which the company still maintains allow for unfettered access.
The argument over the scope of the easements, in fact, remains far from resolved.
If the company is correct, and the access is universal, then Plum Creek has lost nothing by backing out, but the public has lost the negotiated concessions.
But if the county is correct, and Plum Creek's rights are limited, then the public has avoided a legal amendment that would have increased residential access through federal forests.
“We're pleased,” said Missoula County Commissioner Jean Curtiss. “I think Plum Creek made a good decision today. Now we have time to work with them.“
By abandoning the amendment, she said, Plum Creek has removed the urgency created by Rey's departure.
“It allows us the time we need to shine a little light on this, and that's a good thing,” agreed Sen. Jon Tester, D-Mont.
Tester intervened last spring, helping to delay implementation of the agreement until those affected could be brought up to speed. His concerns, he said, were never with the amendment itself, but rather with the process, which was conducted outside the public eye.
“I've said it before - if this is a good deal for the public, then there's no harm in taking the time to work through it properly,” Tester said.
Rey said he will meet with the senator later this week, as promised before Plum Creek's reversal, “to discuss all the implications.”
Rey still contends Plum Creek's access rights exist regardless, and that the public will be ill served without the concessions he won during negotiations.
But Curtiss maintains those concessions were “fairly insignificant,” and called them “so much paper.”
All agree, however, that the scope of access allowed by historic easements will have to be decided at some point.
James McCubbin, a deputy county attorney for Missoula County, is charged with reviewing the legal aspects of subdivision requests. One of those requirements is that the landowners have legal access to the site.
“I think it's entirely possible that a judge may have to rule on the language of some of these easements,” McCubbin predicted.
He's reviewed several of the documents, and says that “while some do, in fact, provide unrestricted access, many more do not.”
“Those issues will be decided on a case-by-case basis,” McCubbin said.
For now, however, the attorney is feeling more grateful than litigious.
“We're very pleased that Plum Creek is acknowledging the public input they've received,” he said. “This is a perfect example of why public input is so critical.”
McCubbin added that Plum Creek's decision to withdraw “puts us in a very good position to move forward as partners on these issues.”
“And that's what needs to happen here,” Tester agreed, “with an open process, where everyone is at the table from day one.”
|
 |
 |
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)
john b wrote on Jan 6, 2009 9:23 AM:
" Just another case of burocrats with to much time on their hands. A case of a tyrannical government taking away private land value by dictating what can be done on it. "
Jim Moose wrote on Jan 6, 2009 10:45 AM:
" Now the at this easement issue has been temporarily put to the side, the County's public process leading to the adoption of zoning on Plum Creek lands will be an extremely important venue for public input, the application of sound planning principles, and scientific analysis of the potential adverse effects of development.
In carrying forward the zoning process on Plum Creek lands (e.g., in the Seeley Lake planning area), Missoula County officials should take a broad view of the County's regulatory and planning powers under the state constitution. Although Plum Creek, like any private land owner, has a constitutional right to object to any zoning action that would eliminate all reasonable economic use of its property, Plum Creek has no inherent right to undertake significant amounts of residential development in sensitive forests. Continued timber harvesting with appropriate mitigation may be a less impacting land use in these areas; and it is presumptively an economically viable use as the traditional use for many decades.
The County should also refuse to be intimidated by the possibiliy that Plum Creek might choose to exercise its right of "veto" over the County's final zoning decisions. The statute authorizing the veto is of questionable legal validity for several reasons -- the main one being that the veto undermines democratic decision-making by creating a preferred class of citizens with large land holdings who can resist the exercise of governmental power and authority in a way that no ordinary citizen can. "
In carrying forward the zoning process on Plum Creek lands (e.g., in the Seeley Lake planning area), Missoula County officials should take a broad view of the County's regulatory and planning powers under the state constitution. Although Plum Creek, like any private land owner, has a constitutional right to object to any zoning action that would eliminate all reasonable economic use of its property, Plum Creek has no inherent right to undertake significant amounts of residential development in sensitive forests. Continued timber harvesting with appropriate mitigation may be a less impacting land use in these areas; and it is presumptively an economically viable use as the traditional use for many decades.
The County should also refuse to be intimidated by the possibiliy that Plum Creek might choose to exercise its right of "veto" over the County's final zoning decisions. The statute authorizing the veto is of questionable legal validity for several reasons -- the main one being that the veto undermines democratic decision-making by creating a preferred class of citizens with large land holdings who can resist the exercise of governmental power and authority in a way that no ordinary citizen can. "
Jon wrote on Jan 6, 2009 1:28 PM:
" This is a good thing. The downward spiral in real estate values has slowed up Plum Creeks development urges. I have no doubt that this is strictly a business decision on the part of Plum Creek. If developers were working at the same level as 2006 this deal would be signed, sealed and delivered from Rey, Bush and Cheney "
Matthew Koehler wrote on Jan 6, 2009 7:20 AM:
The WildWest Institute filled a FOIA request a month prior to Missoula County's, and like the county, the initial "information" we got back was paltry to the point of being laughable. Having filed numerous FOIA's during the Bush Administration and Mark Rey's reign, this has certainly been a common practices.
We ended up lacking the expertise and time to carry the Plum Creek/Forest Service FOIA request any further so we are thankful for the excellent job Mr. McCubbin and Missoula County have done to protect the interests of Missoula County taxpayers and other western Montana taxpayers - as well as all federal taxpayers. Keep up the great work! "