Posted on 08/12/2004 9:56:13 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
California taxpayers may be able to preserve wildlife and the scenic views across Hearst Ranch without spending the $95 million called for in a proposed state deal, according to a new report from the California Coastal Commission.
The report, issued by the commission's district office in Santa Cruz, raises new questions about the landmark Hearst Ranch deal even as a vote to release state funding is scheduled for today by the state Wildlife Conservation Board in Sacramento.
Details of deal
Under a deal negotiated by the Schwarzenegger administration, Hearst -- a New York City media giant that owns the San Francisco Chronicle, 27 TV stations and part of ESPN -- would retain nearly all of the 82,000-acre cattle ranch in San Luis Obispo County.
The company would sell development rights on nearly all of the land to the state. Hearst would be allowed to build 27 homes and a hotel, although those projects would require approval from the coastal commission. Hearst also would give 950 acres of beaches to the state parks department. There would be no public access over most of the ranch.
But the Coastal Commission said if Hearst applies to build 27 luxury homes on the property, which is zoned for agriculture, the commission will require Hearst to donate development rights over the rest of the ranch for free.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
What kind of deal is this, Gub?
I went to Hearst Castle in June...it was a ghost town.
(I half expected the ghost of Hamlet to appear)
The area near the castle is already blighted by motels, grocery stores and shanties but the area along the coast on the fairly broad bench north of the castle is worth saving at a significan cost to taxpayers.
Here are some of the major points of Hearst Ranch plan
The Associated Press
http://www.bakersfield.com/state_wire/story/4870342p-4923342c.html
Here are some of the major points of the draft Hearst Conservation Plan:
-Protection of 18 miles of coastline.
-Conservation easements severely restricting future use of 80,000 acres of scenic ranch land.
-Transfer of 1,500 acres to the state, including 13 beaches along 13 miles of California coastline.
-Continued access along a total of five additional miles of coastline, with restrictions on the number of people allowed on some sections.
-Permission to construct a 100-room inn in Old San Simeon Village.
-Construction of 10 new employee homes and 27 residential homes on five-acre plots, located outside public views of Hearst Castle and Highway One.
-No public access to east section except for limited access for four nonprofit events per year.
-Cost: $95 million. Funds from propositions 40 and 50 will provide most of the $80 million, and a tax credit will provide $15 million.
---
Source: The California Resources Agency
I would guess at least $1 million+ each?
scenic views used to be a dime a dozen
as conservancies and land protection programs proliferate, a million a lot is a steal if ya can snag one ;-)
State board advances purchase of fabled Hearst Ranch
http://www.bakersfield.com/state_wire/story/4870347p-4923356c.html
By DON THOMPSON, Associated Press Writer
SACRAMENTO (AP) - The state took a big step toward acquiring 13 miles of one of the last sections of available undeveloped coastal land, after a state commission on Thursday unanimously approved spending $34 million in parks money for the Hearst Ranch.
The Wildlife Conservation Board approved the money for one of California's most fabled properties over the objection of some environmental groups, legislators and employees of the California Coastal Commission. They are upset the $95 million sale was negotiated in secret and restricts public access to portions of the ranch that can never be developed under the agreement.
The California Coastal Conservancy still must give its approval at a Sept. 15 meeting in Napa if the deal is to proceed, and the proposal must get the OK of the state Department of Parks and Recreation.
But state Resources Secretary Mike Chrisman, whose agency oversees the parks department, signaled his approval of the agreement his agency negotiated.
"The preservation of these lands and the acquisition of these key coastline properties will be a tremendous benefit for the state," Chrisman said in a statement after the vote. "This is a unique project that sets a new standard for conservation projects in California."
The board added two conditions before approving the money on a 3-0 vote Thursday evening after four hours of testimony and arguments.
The final agreement must protect the natural view from Highway 1 even after the road is realigned as proposed by the California Department of Transportation. And the Department of Fish and Game must be allowed to inventory the plant and wildlife conditions on the property and monitor any changes over time.
In return for $80 million in cash and $15 million in tax breaks, Hearst Corp. is set to turn over 13 miles of central coast beaches and ban development on 80,000 acres surrounding state-owned Hearst Castle, one-time home to newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst. Hearst Corp. still owns the San Francisco Chronicle along with 27 television stations and part of ESPN.
The agreement would let the company farm 3,600 acres of the San Luis Obispo County cattle ranch, and build a 100-room hotel, 27 homes, and 15 employee housing units if the coastal commission approves.
But the coastal commission's staff has questioned proponents' arguments that the state is getting the property at less than half price. They say the $230 million appraised value was based on an assumption the company would otherwise be able to build more than 400 homes on the land, which the commission would never allow.
Hearst Corp. says the appraisal is conservative for a priceless property that extends from rocky beaches into rolling coastal mountains, land that could be parceled off if there is no protection agreement.
Commissioners in 1998 blocked the company's plan for an 18-hole golf course and 650-room resort on the property, ultimately prompting the preservation plan. But like environmental groups, the commission is now concerned about development, public access, and preserving views, habitat, and wildlife under the pending agreement.
Sierra Club lobbyist Bill Allayaud on Wednesday personally asked Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to slow the state's approval of the deal until questions are resolved.
"The whole thing is smacking more and more from on high that this is a deal that must be approved now," Allayaud said.
He and others argued the state can get a better deal if it waits, and said the approval sets a bad precedent for future state acquisitions.
---
On the Net:
Wildlife Conservation Board: http://www.wcb.ca.gov
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.