Environmentalists, activists and news media pose more questions about Cone Ranch deal in Hillsborough

June 15, 2009 at 7:01 am by Kelly Cornelius

Photo credit: otisarchives3 Flickr.com

By Kelly Cornelius
PoHo contributor & R-LAND activist

I wasn’t the only one that thought something smelled funny about this Cone Ranch deal, a recent proposal by Commissioner Ken “Half Truth” Hagan (to subdivide and sell public land to private investors) and in the process serve up millions to Republican donors for brokering the deal. The St. Petersburg Times raised some major concerns and inconsistencies in this editorial and, according to this article in the TampaTribune, Mariella Smith says it stinks! Smith is a highly regarded environmentalist and she fights tirelessly and fearlessly on behalf of it. She always comes armed with enough information to make even the most seasoned and highly paid development interests look like buffoons, and I have nothing but respect for her on this or any other issue for that matter.  If she says it stinks, bring a clothespin or a gas mask.

Another very trusted and educated voice weighing in recently is Charlotte Butler-Nelson of Plant City. She, too, is a fearless voice in the fight against sprawl and in protecting the environment. She is the president of the Alliance of Rural Citizens, or ARC. I have picked out some of her questions in a recent letter to the County Commission and they are as follows:

If preservation is of paramount concern, why hasn’t the BOCC contacted ELAPP and the Parks and Recreation Dept. to inquire as to their interest in purchasing the property? The voters of Hillsborough County spoke loud and clear in the last election to keep the ELAPP program. There will certainly be ELAPP funding available in the new budget year. And, if Comm. Hagan is so concerned about restoration, perhaps the BOCC should ask the Budget Dep’t. to identify how the $14 million of CIT money, that was set aside for the Sports Complex at Cone Ranch, was spent.

Why isn’t the county Real Estate Dept. involved in this particular sale of property? I am sure that they have sources for finding interested buyers which makes me suspicious of why it is necessary to have FCEG find the prospective buyers and negotiate the sales price.

And, since the Real Estate Dept. employees already work for the county, there will not be a need to pay for buyers being brought to the table.

and later she asks:

Lastly, why hasn’t there been discussion about the Water Dept. leasing Cone Ranch to ELAPP, or to the Parks Dept., for 99 years for only $1.00. Hillsborough County already leases land from other public and private landowners (i.e.. Lithia Springs, Menard Park Reservoir, Rogers Park and the several parks within the Upper Hillsborough Flood Retention Area). This type of arrangement would ensure preservation and protection as a viable option at no cost to the county.

and finally she nails them with this:

The county’s 20-year Comprehensive Plan has designated the Cone Ranch for preservation. The Cone Ranch is adjacent to the Green Swamp which is of great significance to our water supply and to the wildlife corridor. I hardly think that splitting the property into 6 parcels with houses, wells and septic tanks, barns, fences, and access roads, will be compatible with preservation of any type. The Cone Ranch needs to be retained in its entirety, in perpetuity, period.

During public comment at the June 3 County Commission meeting, Pam Clouston, President of R-LAND had these questions regarding Cone Ranch:

WHO EXACTLY IS FCEG?
WHAT’S THE PROPERTY WORTH?
DOES ELAPP HAVE THE FIRST RIGHT OF REFUSAL?
HOW DOES THE NATURE CONSERVANCY FIGURE INTO THIS AND WHAT
DO THEY HAVE TO GAIN FROM IT?
WHO IN THE HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL COMMUNITY DID
FCEG TALK TO?
WHAT ARE THE EXISTING PARTNERSHIPS ON THIS PROPERTY?
IF IT BELONGS TO WATER RESOURCES, HOW CAN THE COUNTY SELL
IT?
WHICH OF THESE PARTNERSHIPS CAN BE TERMINATED AND WHICH
CANNOT?
HOW MUCH MONEY IS FCEG GOING TO MAKE ON THIS DEAL?
WHAT’S THE PROPERTY COSTING HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY RIGHT NOW?
SHOULD THE PROPERTY BE SOLD TO ONE OR MORE INVESTORS, COULD
THOSE DIVIDE THOSE PARCELS AGAIN?
WOULD THERE BE A GUARANTEE THAT THE REMAINING 800 ACRES
WOULD BE USED FOR A PASSIVE PARK, LIKE A NATURE PRESERVE
AND NOT A SPORTS PARK?
CAN THERE BE A GUARANTEE THAT NO BUILDING ON ANY OF THESE
PARCELS WILL BE NO MORE THAN 400 SQUARE FEET?
WHAT IS THE EXACT PROPOSED TRANSACTION STRUCTURE OF THIS?
COULD THESE CONSERVATION EASEMENTS BECOME A WETLAND
MITIGATION BANK, AND IF SO, WHY WOULDN’T HILLSBOROUGH
COUNTY WANT TO MAKE DOLLARS ON THAT?
IS THERE ALREADY A BUYER OR BUYERS LINED UP?
WOULD HUNTING BE ALLOWED ON ANY OF THE CONSERVED AREAS?
WHEN DID THIS PROPOSAL BEGIN?
WHO CURRENTLY HAS ACCESS TO THIS PROPERTY AND WHO ARE THOSE
USING THE PROPERTY FOR PRIVATE PURPOSES?
DOES THE COUNTY NOT HAVE STAFF CAPABLE OF PUTTING TOGETHER
THIS TYPE OF DEAL?
AND WHY DO WE EVEN WANT TO DO THIS?

(Sadly, Clouston was overlooked and was not appointed to the panel though she made her interest in the position known immediately after they announced the idea for the panel. In addition to being a well respected community volunteer and activist, she is also a Master Naturalist.)

I hope all of these very valid questions will be answered in the near future. During the first discussion on this idea at a recent County Commission meeting the brokers pitching it gave a presentation that exemplified the dog ate my homework excuse. If any of you “brokers” are reading this, the Trib has some great photos of Cone Ranch up, maybe you could ask to use them for your next presentation instead of what appeared to be clip art the last time. Just a friendly suggestion. You also might want to have an idea about how the actual deal would be set up (since y’all are the experts and everything). Not to put too much of a burden on you donors brokers but having something written out to hand to staff, NIMBYs, and concerned citizens makes you look a little more legit and stating your title before your presentation also helps. I usually don’t like to give the competition a leg up but in this case charity is definitely in order.

The issue of commissioner appointees to the environmental panel was a last minute addendum to the June 3 County Commission agenda and from what I can gather it is a mixed bag. Commissioner Mark Sharpe gets the “what the hell were you thinking” award for appointing wetland-hater Hugh Gramling, which would be similar to appointing ex-Commissioner Brian Blair to a diversity panel. After Sharpe’s stellar performance on SB 360 this one left me wondering if he is taking his summer vacation on the dark side.

Blog Widget by LinkWithin

Leave a Reply

*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture.
Anti-Spam Image

SEARCH