| OCR Text |
Show APRIL 1996 “Open Space” Too Scary for Legislature ic the end, the words “open space” were just too frightening to a prodevelopment Utah Legislature and law makers that have repeatedly cast themselves as Sagebrush Rebels, openly distaining the idea of land preserves During the final 48 hours of the 1996 legislative session, a modest open space proposal was hamstrung to the point of ineffectiveness before it was passed by the House and Senate The end product was so far gone that Gov Mike Leavitt decided to junk the made-over product and go back to square one. All this, of course, impediment to economic development. The words “open space” were even taken out of the bill, altogether, in the House. last-minute legislative alterThe ations put an end to an effort that “By the time that amendment made it into the law, a lot of open space advocates felt it took them backward from the original goal,” — Leavitt spokeswoman Vicki Varella. after legislative leaders made nice purring noises about open space at the governor’s Growth Summit last fall Leonard The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Blackham, R-Moroni, the senate majority leader, apparently not wanting to rankle his colleagues, says it was a simple “misunderstanding” that led to the bill’s dissolution. And Utah Open Lands director Wendy Fisher says she isn’t “really sure” why the bill was gutted, but she believes “some people were fearful” of an open space law. It seems clear that a legislature dominated by agricultural interests and developers saw open space as an began in May to somehow preserve Open space and agricultural lands that are rapidly disappearing in Utah. A legislative task force began looking at the issue in May of last year. By the time of the legislature’s opening gavel, they had constructed a plan that would establish a commission to help communities and conservation organizations preserve important lands. The bill also established a trust account that would hold land and money to be used for open space acquisition. All this, of course, was anathema to many property rights advocates, who don’t necessarily want any land saved. Their rally cry has been that Utah is already 80 percent open space. Why save more? Last minute maneuvering took away the $300,000 operating budget for the open space commission. In addition, an 11th-hour amendment to the bill stated there could be “no net loss” of land from the private sector either in acreage or value. “By the time that amendment made it into the law, a lot of open space advocates felt it took them backward from the original goal,” said Leavitt Vicki Varella. spc %keswoman “The governor felt it is an important enough thing, that when we do it, we want to do it right.” lackham now wants to call lands that should be preserved “important lands,” apparently hoping to get away from some of the stigma now attached to so-called open space. “T think it’s more descriptive than open space,” Blackham said, noting that important lands include agricultural lands, water shed and wildlife habi- the purchase of real property. Travel | Directory ¢ Hotels ¢ Travel Agencies * Outfitters * B&Bs RESERVE SPACE NOW David Ground David Matthews Only = nt Oh, Associate Broker, A.B.R., G.R.I., C.R.S. 1500 Kearns Boulevard Park City, Utah 84060 for GETAWAYS MATTHEWS Suite E-200 « P.O. Box 3202 easements Fisher explained. “Well, conservation easements are real property.” Now, no one knows whether future legislation can be passed to help communities preserve Open space. Blackham believes he can bring the bill back next year, after he explains to his conservative Republican colleagues that preserving important lands from development makes sense. @ f Tour Guides Higher Conservation Get Into the “Mountain Times” Adventure on space. are one of the primary tools in accomplishing that. In the end, the bill’s “no net loss” language disallowed funding “We don’t want mountain-tomountain homes. People want a little openness,” he said. Endorsed by an Independent Lab. Estate Open tat. » David Matthews Real Still, the idea that government is somehow going to steal or otherwise set aside more land has legislators uneasy about the concept of preserving Open space. “Any time you talk about trading land or buying conservation easements, it de-values the land,” the senate majority leader said. The space bill revised open worked as a disincentive to preserving land, whether it was for water shed, agricultural purposes or just for open preserve, said Wendy Fisher of Utah Open Lands. By its very charter, Utah Open Lands tries to find ways to preserve ° ccdomsen Office $49.95 25,000 Network @ Park City Direct 801-645-8000 801-64-REMAX CALL Fax ©~. 801-647-0023 PAGE 14 per month issues OR FAX per month . , 801-649-8046 ‘ 4 |
