PDA

View Full Version : Developers are winning, we are losing...



Sedona Jeep School
07-18-2005, 07:03 AM
In today's AZ Repugnant is an article about conservationists losing their fight. http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0718stateland18.html

Since OHV interests often butt heads with the conservation view of things, the first response may be "Ha!" BUT, read on.

If all of us look at the big picture, WE are losing--anyone who enjoys wheeling, hiking, riding, and just general outdoors. Land that becomes more houses has NO chance of public recreation for the rest of OUR lives, at the very least. Conversely, land left as open space, at least has some negotiating room for what types of recreation are suitable. I mean, how many meetings are there for deciding whether Jeep trails in what is now, just as an example, Anthem will remain open for public use? ZERO--that land is gone forever.

THIS is our biggest fight: In Arizona, we are losing land to DEVELOPERS, moreso than to conservationists. Did any of you read the thread about White Tanks? http://www.virtualjeepclub.com/showthread.php?t=8835 It wasn't someone like Earth First who closed it--it appears that the land is being developed for more homes.

Here is my point: our comparatively meager interests (compared to the "deep pockets" of developers) MUST team up with like interests, and in Arizona's case, believe it or not, we have more in common with the Sierra Club, the Save-the-Humpback Chub-Club, the shooters, the ATV-ers, the Militant Lesbian Backpackers, and any Joe Shmoe who enjoys an acre or more of open land. (I took a few liberties with the identities of organizations, but you get my point!) In Arizona, OHV recreationists ARE conservationists.

I suggest that, rather than regarding members of conservationist organizations as the "enemy" all of the time, we look for common ground on issues upon which we can team up--like preventing our entire state from being covered by housing developments. THEN we agree to disagree on what we do with our lands. At least we will have developed a dialogue with the conservationists, which will make negotiations in other areas much more effective.

Don't get me wrong--we still have negotiations on our hands NOW for access. This is what Sandee and Jim are doing. Thanks, y'all.

Any of you who choose to act by attending meetings and writing letters, at the very least, with regard to your immediate area, are putting another much-needed drop in the bucket. Doing nothing is a decision in itself--a decision to let other interests overrun our trails. You choose.

Stepping off of soap box now...

AZXJ
07-18-2005, 07:30 AM
Well said Nena... Thank you..

rockwerks
07-18-2005, 07:31 AM
THIS is our biggest fight: In Arizona, we are losing land to DEVELOPERS, moreso than to conservationists. Did any of you read the thread about White Tanks? http://www.virtualjeepclub.com/showthread.php?t=8835 It wasn't someone like Earth First who closed it--it appears that the land is being developed for more homes.

There is little we can do about this unfortunately except when the land comes up for sale to buy it like has been done in MOAB. This is not new. Every state in the west is doing the same thing, they use money from land sales to help pay for shortfalls to run the govt.

We are not the only state to have this problem. Working with the conservationists is a good idea in itself. The nature converancey is one group who has the deep pockets to buy up the land and usually keeps it open to all forms of existing public use.

Short of an ammendment making the sale of state trust or publically owned lands to be done only by popular vote, the practice will continue.

jeepsonly
07-18-2005, 08:34 AM
Buying land for private four wheeling might be a great idea but no one seems to want to organize it. Unfortunately acreage in our state has seen HUUUUUGGGEEE increases in price in the past 3 years so there would have to be a lot of money involved. When land is going for $250,000 or more per acre (a price I saw in Queen Creek recently), it's hard to pull together enough money to buy enough acreage for decent wheeling. That being said, all we need is some land a developer wouldn't want that's hilly and rocky, so maybe the prices would be more reasonable.

rockwerks
07-18-2005, 08:45 AM
Buying land for private four wheeling might be a great idea but no one seems to want to organize it. Unfortunately acreage in our state has seen HUUUUUGGGEEE increases in price in the past 3 years so there would have to be a lot of money involved. When land is going for $250,000 or more per acre (a price I saw in Queen Creek recently), it's hard to pull together enough money to buy enough acreage for decent wheeling. That being said, all we need is some land a developer wouldn't want that's hilly and rocky, so maybe the prices would be more reasonable.

So what is the existing process that the State must follow to sell state trust land?

Stomper
07-18-2005, 09:00 AM
I could be wrong but I believe there has to be a vote. The State Land Department manages trust land and is required to reap the maximum profit from the sale of it. The Commissioner of the State Land Department has to bring forward the details of the deal (trade for other land or sell) and the process continues from there.

Take care,

S

RufftyTuffty
07-18-2005, 09:09 AM
Opps...wrong thread.

~Mike

rockwerks
07-18-2005, 10:22 AM
I could be wrong but I believe there has to be a vote. The State Land Department manages trust land and is required to reap the maximum profit from the sale of it. The Commissioner of the State Land Department has to bring forward the details of the deal (trade for other land or sell) and the process continues from there.

Take care,

S


So who votes? not us thats for sure

Stomper
07-18-2005, 10:39 AM
Sorry, I forgot that part. I think it is the legislature or a committee of the State legislature.

Take care,

S

rockwerks
07-18-2005, 10:49 AM
Sorry, I forgot that part. I think it is the legislature or a committee of the State legislature.

Take care,

S

We need to change that to allow state trust land to only be sold after a popular vote. I think working with conservation groups we could make that happen, imagine the power if all the recreationalist and conservationalist got together to have the law changed. and it would stop expansion. Who on the friges of town is gonna want a new development in THEIR backyard.

But ya know I now a few of you who live in those latest new subdivisons on the fringes of town. Its funny how we see expansion now that we are here isnt it?

Linda
07-18-2005, 05:36 PM
I think we need to put signs at all the Arizona border crossings that say the Arizona is closed. You can pass through, but you can't stay. :D

hydrotoys
09-03-2005, 11:40 AM
Wasn't a HUGE chunk of land north of Scottsdale closed to OHV, by the tree huggers???

Over the last few years, this land has slowly been sold off to the highest bidder (developer).

The exact same thing has happened in East Mesa, and AJ in open desert land. First the OHV (atvs, jeeps, hikers, bikers, shooters) are removed from the land. Then it is sold to the highest bidder. Then a thousand houses show up and the whole process creeps out.

The state is effectively IN BED with the developers. They are on the receiving end of the transaction... they are getting paid!!! This is a small part of the problem.

"You grease my palm, and I'll grease yours"