Those who are familiar with Maryland politics might remember that back in 2004, Republican Governor Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. tried to begin selling large tracts of state land to developers. The transaction that first caught the public's and media's attention was an attempt to sell 836 acres of St. Mary County woodland to a developer.
There were also reports that Ehrlich was interested in creating a government real estate office that would handle the sale of what he called "excess" state lands. He asked agency heads to submit inventories of the lands under their control for possible sale.
Ehrlich also hired a real estate consulting firm owned by former Cowboy's quarterback Roger Staubach to develop a central database for the potential land sales. (Staubach had hosted a $4000-a-person fundraiser for Ehrlich while the contract was underway).
The rationale offered for the land sales was to make the state more "efficient," to raise needed funds, and to add land to the tax rolls. Needless to say, the environmentally conscious citizens of Maryland were not happy about these efforts.
To make matters worse, it was revealed that Ehrlich's fundraising chief, Richard Hug, and tried to pressure the University of Maryland into selling a university-owned, 840-acre environmental study center in Cambridge, Maryland to a developer who wanted to build a golf course and condominiums.
The result of these backdoor attempts to move state land to developers ended with the Democratic-controlled General Assembly in Maryland passing a Constitutional Amendment that gives legislative oversight on the sale of conservation lands. This action puts the issue on Maryland's ballot in 2006 for voter approval (the same year Ehrlich is running for reelection), and the amendment has overwhelming public support. Ehrlich started out opposing the amendment, but has since changed his mind and now says he supports it (meaning he now supports legislation that protects citizens from people like him).
While all of this was developing last year, the paranoid part of my brain began to wonder if other state governments would also try to pull off something similar to what Ehrlich was trying to do. The answer is yes, and the example comes from Texas.
On August 25, 2005, the Houston Chronicle reported that the Texas Park and Wildlife commissioners were attempting to sell off 46,000 acres of land in the popular Big Bend Ranch State Park to Houston developer John Poindexter. Poindexter, who owns a resort bordering the parkland, has a reputation as an environmentally sensitive developer, but part of the deal would have allowed him to develop resort facilities on an unspecified amount of the land.
The rationale for the sale was again funding, "efficiency," and also an agreement with Poindexter that if the deal went through, he would help them acquire private lands within the park, although there was no guarantee that part of the deal would happen.
Rep. Pete Gallego, D-Alpine, whose district includes the Big Bend Ranch, has received contributions from Poindexter, but to Gallego's credit, he sent a letter to Parks and Wildlife Executive Director Robert Cook Wednesday asking for a delay on any action regarding the sale until a public hearing could be held in a location near the park.
When asked about the controversy, Republican Gov. Rick Perry's spokeswoman, Kathy Walt, said the governor had no plans to "micromanage" the commission's decisions on Big Bend Ranch but he didn't object to delaying the vote. (Perry was Lieutenant Governor under Bush).
Many citizens were outraged to learn about this attempt to conduct the deal without involving the public. In fact, the deal was not disclosed until shortly before the commission was scheduled to discuss and possibly vote on the contract.
The latest update on the issue came in this afternoon when the Houston Chronicle reported that the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission today unanimously rejected the proposal to sell the Big Bend Ranch State Park land, voting 8-0 against the measure after several hours of commissioners' questions and heated testimony from two dozen individuals and representatives of environmental and historical groups.
While these two attempts to unload state conservation land in the name of "efficiency" and funding appear to have failed, those who value state lands must view these two incidents as a possible pattern. It is naive to believe that as long as conservation lands are in the hands of state government, that means they are automatically safe from developers. Nothing could be further from the truth.
So a warning to all environmentalists and concerned citizens who love their state parks and state conservation lands -- pay attention to what your local parks agencies are doing and let them know that you expect protected lands to stay protected.