Not much time left -- spread the word! Help wake people up to this strange, quietly handled deal.
Even if you like the underlying proposal, you should be appalled that the city would enter a deal of this magnitude with so little (essentially no) public involvement and awareness.
I guarantee you that if the Salem Parks and Recreation Advisory Board had recommended the staff proposal, the city staff would be trumpeting that at the top of every page and the start of every presentation. Instead, the SPRAB --- citizen-volunteers appointed by the city council --- unanimously voted to recommend that the city NOT sell these easements. So, poof, it's like it never happened and city staff never mentions the SPRAB anymore.
One of the most troubling things is that several citizens who support the easements idea are dismissing the importance of the Minto-Brown Park Master Plan, which calls for agriculture to be continued in the park. This is at the same time that the city has been working to revise the Parks Master Plan since 2008. Why bother? Why spend staff time and effort on master plans if we ignore them the instant someone offers us some money, even when they want to make us do something that is nowhere mentioned in the master plan?
Don't these citizens they realize how crucial it is for environmental advocates to insist that Salem respect and follow adopted master plans? Without that, it's "anything goes" in terms of development proposals.
Indeed, several easement advocates are arguing that we should ignore the plan because "the master plan is just a plan" and is somehow not a serious commitment or binding obligation. But if so, then citizens really need to know: What other plans has the City adopted that it doesn't really intend to follow? Do we have to start asking Council to make a "pinkie promise" to follow a master plan that they adopt when they're actually planning on taking it seriously? Is the city willing to post a list of all the current council-adopted plans that it doesn't intend to be bound by?
Along those lines, city staff claims that booting agriculture off 80% of the farmed land in the park still complies with the master plan (which specifically notes that agriculture is a benefit to the park and should be continued) because locking up 80% of the farmed acreage is less than 100%, so agriculture IS continuing. Ho ho!
If Council buys that argument and sells off these easements then we should "continue" the Public Works Department likewise by reducing its budget by 80%. After all, if city staff don't see a difference between "continuing" something and reducing it by 80% then we've definitely got an opportunity for some real savings there.
Posts
2 comments:
While I agree that the City of Salem could provide more communication on this issue and I would rather keep the federal government out of a city issue, I am not sure that your blog does this issue justice either.
The issue seems to be whether all of the land in Minto-Brown Park currently used for an agriculture purpose continues that way in perpetuity. The conservation easement currently proposed does not restrict All of the ag use, only a part of it.
The primary purpose of this park should be for recreational use. This includes walking, biking, dogs, fishing and wildlife viewing. The proposed easement does not appear to restrict the current uses and may enhance future recreational use.
I think you should reconsider some of your other comments. To imply that the City is selling this property is wrong. They are selling a conservation easement, an agreement between the feds and the City that layout the use of the property, not selling the property. You also imply through not providing the total park acreage that the easement covers the entire park, not less than 1/4 of the park. You also ignore the fact that current recreational facilities will not be impacted.
One of the questions I have after doing some research is why don't the farmers lease the property they are using which would provide income that could be used for park maintenance.
I realize that blogs are a forum to say what you want, but people reading need to understand that blog articles might be biased.
"The conservation easement currently proposed does not restrict All of the ag use, only a part of it."
Yes, 200 acres of 260 acres currently being farmed, roughly 80%.
"The primary purpose of this park should be for recreational use."
Why don't we consult the master plan for the park, which was put together with lots of citizen input and involvement -- that says that agriculture is beneficial and appropriate for the park and should be continued, with a transition towards organic methods.
I don't believe this blog has ever suggested that the city is selling title to the land -- only control.
"You also imply through not providing the total park acreage that the easement covers the entire park, not less than 1/4 of the park. You also ignore the fact that current recreational facilities will not be impacted."
There's no need to mention the total park acreage since 100% of the land that would be affected is ag land, including some of the highest, driest land in the park.
"One of the questions I have after doing some research is why don't the farmers lease the property they are using which would provide income that could be used for park maintenance."
That's a GREAT question -- the farmer operates under a license that the city wrote. The Salem Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, the citizens appointed by the city to advise them on parks matters, suggests that the city should (1) REJECT this proposal; (2) Put the farming license out for competitive bidding; and (3) Revise the master plan for the park (last revised 1995).
Post a Comment