Posted on 02/01/2004 1:22:07 PM PST by calcowgirl
SAN SIMEON – It's one of the most stunning chunks of waterfront real estate in California. Largely unpaved, unwired, unpiped and untouched by the public, it is home to zebras, and seals the size of Hummers, and carries the enduring stamp of an American icon.
The Hearst Ranch is believed to be the largest undeveloped, privately owned property on the coast.
"We think it's as special as they come," said Stephen Hearst, 47, the great-grandson of newspaper publisher William Randolph Hearst, who inherited land that his father bought in the 1860s and was the force behind the famed Hearst Castle.
After decades of uncertainty and debate over the land, the Hearst Corp. is close to striking a deal that would preserve the 128-square-mile spread for the public.
Under the still-evolving proposal, the Hearst Corp. would keep the massive cattle ranch, while the state would buy most of the development rights, using bond money earmarked for land conservation. This would ensure that Hearst couldn't develop the lion's share of the property.
At stake is a romantic slice of Old California – 82,000 acres of mountains and oak-crowned hills, along with 18 miles of raw, rocky coastline.
Imagine La Jolla or Monterey or San Francisco before the bulldozers came.
A menagerie of animals and plants blanket the ranch, including deer, endangered steelhead trout and several varieties of oak. The offspring of African zebra, brought to the ranch decades ago, roam the interior.
The ranch surrounds Hearst Castle, a popular tourist stop on Highway 1, the two-lane road that winds through some of the most striking landscape on the West Coast.
"These sorts of historic, scenic, coastal properties don't exist anymore," said attorney Mark Massara, head of coastal programs for the Sierra Club. "Everywhere you look, the California coastline is crowded cheek-by-jowl with luxury mansions, resorts and golf courses."
The new secretary of the state Resources Agency recently toured the ranch, which is three times the size of Oceanside.
"It's a very significant piece of land," said Mike Chrisman, who was appointed Resources Agency secretary by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. "We're in critical discussions (with the Hearst Corp.) right now, so we'll see. I'm hopeful we'll be able to work out some sort of agreement."
American Land Conservancy, a San Francisco-based land trust, is involved in the talks, which could result in one of the most complex land-preservation pacts in state history.
Last year, the trust signed an agreement with the Hearst Corp. to help craft a conservation proposal.
A host of issues, such as public access and tax credits, still must be resolved. Many Hearst heirs would continue to live on the ranch.
Another tricky issue: How do you put a price tag on a piece of land that is priceless to many Californians?
Teams of appraisers are combing the property, trying to determine its value. Local newspaper stories have said the deal could cost the state $80 million to $100 million.
Hearst Corp. and state officials decline to talk numbers, but they stress that any deal would require extensive public hearings before it can be approved.
State resources officials say the money could come from two conservation bond measures approved by voters in 2002. Those initiatives have raised about $450 million to protect wild lands and beaches.
But officials worry that the state's fiscal crisis could force Schwarzenegger to use those funds to help balance the budget.
Chrisman calls the Hearst site an "ideal candidate" for the bond money.
Whatever the terms, a preservation deal is bound to open another lively debate over the ranch's fate.
A Hearst Corp. proposal in the 1990s to develop San Simeon Point into a beachfront resort with a golf course turned into a public relations disaster.
Many conservationists and others railed against the idea, calling it an assault on one of the most scenic stretches of state coastline. In nearby San Luis Obispo and other largely rural Central California communities, the corporation and its big-city attorneys were viewed as money-grubbing villains.
Enter Stephen Hearst, son of Hearst Corp. Chairman George Hearst Jr.
Like other members of his large clan, Stephen Hearst grew up exploring the rugged ranch. He hiked it as a child and was married in its Hacienda-style bunkhouse.
That land, he likes to say, "is the most emotional asset in the Hearst family trust. . . . It's home."
Unwilling to sell it but mindful of the land's environmental value, he said he set out to craft a deal that would benefit everyone: his family, the corporation and the public.
"Me not being directly involved in the business decisions surrounding these plans over the years let me walk in and look at it with a fresh perspective," Stephen Hearst said.
Some critics harbor doubts. Still stinging over the beachfront resort flap, they are suspicious of the corporation's motives.
"I'd like to think Hearst really does believe what he says," said Tarren Collins, chairwoman of the region's Sierra Club chapter. "But he still has to answer to a corporation."
Shirley Bianchi, a San Luis Obispo County supervisor, detects a change of heart among the Hearsts.
As a county planning commissioner in the late 1990s, Bianchi opposed Hearst plans to build the resort. Today, she supports a conservation pact, as long as it locks up the land in perpetuity and doesn't burden the local community with infrastructure costs.
"To this day, Stephen Hearst has not lied to me, and the previous negotiators lied through their teeth," Bianchi said.
The Sierra Club and some other environmental groups complain negotiations are unfolding in private between Hearst Corp. and the American Land Conservancy. They worry a deal will shortchange the public.
As part of a conservation framework unveiled last year, the Hearst Corp. said it could provide permanent public access to 18 miles of coastline. Certain stretches of the seal-packed, surf-soaked beach are open to the public, but only on a temporary basis.
Some critics worry that access to the rest of the ranch would be severely limited, denying Californians a chance to hike through its mountainous interior. Hearst Corp. and American Land Conservancy representatives say some access probably will be allowed.
The Sierra Club's Mark Massara said the Hearst Corp. also wants to build 27 homes on ranch land east of Highway 1 and that it would retain the right to build a 100-room inn near the beach.
Massara said the state should buy the ranch outright.
"There are some troubling aspects to this thing," Massara said.
Gary Felsman of Arroyo Grande, a former Sierra Club chairman, disagrees. Felsman is eager to examine the fine print of any agreement but thinks Hearst is heading in the right direction.
"It's the only area of the coast that hasn't been developed," said Felsman, who used to live in San Diego County. "The scenic value is tremendous."
Kara Blakeslee, another former San Diegan, is representing the American Land Conservancy in talks with the Hearst Corp.
"A lot of people from San Diego come up here," Blakeslee said. "There's a pretty strong emotional attachment to this land that goes well beyond this area."
http://www.hearstcastle.org/
I refer, of course, to coastal California. I suppose other parts of the state are probably a bit better off.
Ain't it though. I love that place and the surrounding area. If I could afford it, I'd buy it.
I don't know if you're joking. But I can see her sitting in the study some cold winter night with a driving rain slashing against the leaded glass windows, a cheerful fire in the grate, a slightly warmed snifter of 100 year old Brandy on the table. I can think of worse things than doing a crossword puzzle at a time like that.
The public is welcome to tour the castle but stay off the ranch.The family is welcome to use the existing facilities but no more new structures. The Conservancy and the Sierra Club are welcome to assist the process but no accommodations for it members or directors other than those enjoyed by the general public.
Keep it as it is. A bit of California history, preserved for everyone to enjoy as they travel the back roads of California.
Note* The modest tourist accommodations, developed in the last 10 years, just south of the ranch, are a trashy little eyesore. State Highway 1 between Cayucous and Big Sur should remain a less traveled road. Even the gentle urban blight in the Cambria area should be minimized.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.