Hector Conde On Why We Should Save Arroyo Grande

This is what I testified at the OV Planning and Zoning meeting on July 1st.:

It is been said that the sales of state lands benefits schools. The story begins with the Enabling Act of 1910. At the time when Arizona was applying for statehood, the federal government distrusted people who governed Arizona. Fearing that they would divide the land amongst themselves, the Enabling Act was passed. The enabling act is an act of distrust, not a charitable act.

In 1967, Justice Harlan opined for the US Supreme Court, in the case of Lassen V. Arizona:

“Senator Beveridge, the committee's chairman, made clear on the floor of the Senate that the committee's determination to require the restrictions sprang from its fear that the trust would be exploited for private advantage. He emphasized that the committee was influenced chiefly by the repeated violations of a similar grant made to New Mexico in 1898. The violations had allegedly consisted of private sales at unreasonably low prices."

Similarly, Justice Bolton on an Az. Supreme Court case, Korte V. Bayless, said:

"Indeed, mismanagement of trust lands raised so great a concern at the time of statehood that delegates considered adopting even more stringent safeguards, including a constitutional provision that would forbid entirely the sale of state trust lands”

But the schools all work on budgets. Whatever the state land fund interest is, it gets deducted from the state budget for education. The surplus usually ends up being used for legislative pork. The assertion that sale of state lands will increase the school budget is false. With or without sales of state lands schools would get the same amount of money.

Notice that the statutes do not compel the state to sell land at any schedule. Notice that land, according to the state auditors, only increases its value with time. Also, moneys available from the trust are about 2 percent of the state schools budget, which is insignificant.

Pima County has been working on a project called the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan to preserve most of the best environmentally sensitive land in the county. I was a member of the steering committee. After more than 80 million dollars of expenditures and 10 years of work the project got to the point of actually obtaining funding by voter’s bonds for many projects including a wildlife corridor north of Oro Valley. Imagine, the voters taxed themselves to have protected open space. Now, the State Land Arroyo Grande proposal is ruining the County project and hundreds of man-hours of public participation. The county proposal would have bought the whole 13 square miles and devoted the entirety to preservation in perpetuity, as a condition of the sale. There could not have been housing built there.

The state does not lose income from the sale of land for conservation. Even if the results of the sale are less than what a bidding may bring, there are benefits that outweigh the apparent loss. To begin with, it provides open space, which is the reason why many buy property in non-overdeveloped areas. It provides protection for wildlife and unique plant species. It requires no infrastructure, like water, roads, electric distribution, and other costly functions paid mostly by the taxpayers. It provides a source of entertainment or enjoyment as parks that are a needed portion of planning. The amount of money that is subtracted from a risky bidding on these properties is more than compensated by its benefits.

Hector Conde