By Daily Press staff
California’s voter-approved bond funds for acquisition of land to protect watersheds and wildlife have been co-opted by large corporate interests selling overpriced deals that circumvent public interest and the good faith voters who supported these conservation bonds, preservationists say.
“The Hearst Ranch deal that will go before the California State’s Wildlife Conservation Board this week and the Coastal Conservancy’s board next month is a perversion of the conservation objective of taxpayer’s money toward corporate land development interest, said Garry Brown, president of Vote the Coast, a grass-roots organization committed to the protection of California coastal and ocean resources and is based in Malibu. “There are many public and natural resources that we strongly support preserving, but no one who supposedly represents the public seems to have the vision to negotiate a deal that really serves the public.”
On behalf of Vote the Coast, Brown offered a number of changes in the Hearst Ranch deal that the organization considers necessary for approval of the deal: ■ Conservation easement language must be written prior to funding. The terms of the easement do not yet contain the specific policies identifying what the resources are or how they will be protected. The terms are to be written by the Hearst Corporation and presented to the state a year after the funding of the transaction. The state does not know what it will be funding. ■ Terms of the easement must be fully enforceable. The state will have no direct enforcement of the conservation easement as it stands. ■ There must be full and public monitoring and oversight on the implementation of the agreement. As written, the public has no effective mechanism for overseeing what is a public asset, purchased with public money. ■ Public access west of Highway 1 must be improved and expanded. In the deal being considered, access to five of the 18 miles along the ranch would be severely limited. Access to areas that the public now enjoys would be restricted. ■ Provisions must be made for access east of Highway 1. The deal offers no provision for public access on the east side of Highway 1.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on August 13, 2004. Read the original PDF.