By Kelly Cornelius
PoHo contributor & R-LAND activist

Remember when the whole idea behind the Cone Ranch possible sale was because Commissioner Ken “Half-Truth” Hagan wanted to “preserve it” after being asked by big-time Republican donors to subdivide and sell off Cone Ranch [more than 12,000 acres of publicly owned land in Northeast Hillsborough County]?

The county now has an advisory board pondering this deal. You can read my take on their first meeting here. This second meeting started with County Administrator Pat Bean addressing the panel lobbing threats about the state of the county water utility which owns the land. Wasn’t this panel supposed to be objective? Yet here we have the County Administrator throwing in her 2 cents. She did admit that the land was already preserved though, glad we got that cleared up. Recall the earlier threats that the Florida Environmental and Conservation Group (FCEG) (the group pushing the sale) made implying that the alternative could be commercial or residential development.

Bean said that the water utilities director Mr. Vanderploog was very concerned over the utlilities bond rating and did not want it to fall. Hmmmm, I thought he cleared that concern up when he asked Commissioners to approve a rate hike recently in water fees, which they did! Now Bean implies the sale of Cone Ranch could be necessary to save the bond rating? Unbelievable.

Recall the referendum on ballot regarding preserving land last year passed overwhelmingly even though Ms. Bean didn’t want to put it on the ballot. Hillsborough County Voters want land to be preserved Ms. Bean. Come early get a program.

During Monday’s meeting the panel also got a history lesson on Cone Ranch, a wetlands update and water quality concerns. There was also a briefing on the procedure of disposing of county property describing some interesting loopholes where a competitive bidding process can be avoided (like to non for profit groups….like what FCEG is proposing) uh-huh, or other governmental agencies (like ELAPP!)

Then the meeting took an unexpected twist with Rosanne Clementi making a motion to recommend to Commissioners that they do not dispose of the property. Hugh Gramling seconded it which raised both my eyebrows considering his recent involvement against wetlands. On the surface this motion sounded OK but as Clementi (with the help of Gramling) clarified their her motion they made it clear that while they did not want the land to officially change hands they still wanted to make recommendations as to the future use of the land and hinted about other ways it could make money (call me jaded but this made me think they might be toying with the idea of letting private companies come in and use the land for profit … maybe a lucrative wetland mitigation bank?)  In other words, what came to my mind was the county pimping out publicly owned land to turn a private profit (throwing the county a few bones along the way of course) and shutting up those pesky residents by not actually selling the land. I know, I know, jaded. This motion would effectively appear take ELAPP (the county’s own land-buying program) out of the picture too.

Dee Layne, Pamela Jo Hatley and Chairwoman Heidi McCree voiced concerns over the prematurity of Clementi’s motion and the fact that FCEG had not even given their official proposal yet (do they even have one?) and that they didn’t know all the facts regarding conservation easements. Clementi and Gramling pushed hard for their motion and I couldn’t help but wonder about the speed at which he seconded it and the hard lobbying he did for it. Hmmmm.

Clementi’s motion failed (a count was not given). The panel will continue to meet and they will hear a detailed (hopefully) proposal from FCEG as well as other options. You can follow their meeting schedule as well as find information about this issue here.

Does this land really need to be “restored” or does it function fine as is? Maybe we could have our EPC do an updated and indepth study? Oh yeah, Ms. Bean’s budget cuts threaten to cripple them. If restoration rather than preservation is now the goal then maybe panelists can suggest a restoration plan to County Commissioners in whatever form keeps the land in public hands.

Oh boy, where to start on this Cone Ranch scheme proposal? Recall Ken Half-Truth Hagan’s half-baked proposal to sell Cone Ranch to private investors in order to “preserve it”? Apparently the Hillsborough County Commission chair all of a sudden became an environmentalist worrying about the future of this sensitive land and wants to do all he can to preserve it, emphasizing the wetlands on the property. You might also recall that ironically he was one of the very same Commissioners hell-bent on getting rid of the wetlands division of the EPC. Hey, people can change, right? Especially when those behind the idea are big-time Republican fundraisers, uh-huh. Come to think of it, that assault on the wetlands division by the majority of the County Commission was also widely thought to be the idea of a ………….big campaign contributor.

So, at Hagan’s request the County Commission appointed a panel to study this idea of selling off public land (already listed as preservation) to private buyers. Or was the panel set up to study what was best for Cone Ranch in general? Even some of the appointees were not clear on this, so at the first meeting on Monday this question was asked by one of the appointees to Edith Stewart. Yep, that Edith Stewart: the county’s top lobbyist was running the meeting. She referred the panel to the County Commission’s transcripts on the issue. That must be why she makes the big bucks (recall you pay her $136,094).

Earlier in that meeting these were Commissioner Hagan’s words to the panel:
THIS IS ABOUT DOING WHAT IS BEST FOR CONE
RANCH AND HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, IT IS NOT ABOUT
RUBBERSTAMPING FCEG’S IDEAS AND PERSPECTIVES,

Yet the county’s own website on the Cone Ranch advisory panel states this: On May 6, 2009 the Hillsborough Board of County Commissioners created the Cone Ranch Environmental Advisory Panel to work with the County staff and with the Florida Conservation and Environmental Group (FCEG) and the Nature Conservancy to consider a proposal by FCEG and all of the issues and partnerships that are involved with Cone Ranch.

The transcripts from the most recent County Commission meeting on this issue indicate to me that this panel is supposed to be about doing what is best for Cone Ranch, not just evaluating the private proposal.

Several members of the panel asked some great questions as did the residents speaking during public comment. Mariella Smith, a local environmentalist and activist, did a fantastic job outlining a process for the panel, and you don’t pay her anything.

Remember when Commissioner Kevin Beckner (the voter’s cure for Brian Blair) asked FCEG to provide a written report during their first presentation? Well, here it is - they only produced a few pages. The public already had a list of questions longer than this report and the lack of substance certainly makes one question their legitimacy and intent. There is a cool flow chart showing which way the money will go though.

Mike Merrill, Utilities and Commerce Administrator for the county, spoke to the panel during their first meeting and he seemed to be trying to steer the audience from believing this was public land by saying it was owned by a business (the water utility). Um, who supports that, Mike? Uh-huh. If this wasn’t public property then why does the Board of County Commissioner (elected by the taxpayers) have the final say on it?  Why did they appoint a panel?

Here is the kicker, kids: the Cone Ranch is NOT FOR SALE. You heard me: NOT FOR SALE. Mr. Paul Vanderploog, Director of Water Resource Services, also spoke to the advisory panel during Monday’s meeting and he states this in his presentation when he said:
CONE RANCH IS NOT
ACTIVELY BEING OFFERED FOR SALE BY THE ENTERPRISE.

Huh?

So let me get this straight. Here we have a whole panel of volunteers, an army of staff working on this (which I believe is on the taxpayer’s dime), yet the Cone Ranch is NOT FOR SALE. Was it in danger of being developed into big bad subdivisions and commercial centers as FCEG threatened during a presentation to the County Commission? Considering it is on the Comprehensive Plan as preservation, I hardly think so. The County Commission itself would have had to approve any changes to our Comp Plan to get the land use of this ranch changed and as bad as the gang of Five Four is, I am guessing even they know that changing preservation land to residential or commercial would be political suicide. As I watched this advisory panel meeting unfold with the staff trying to explain all the bond covenants and all the other strings attached to the land, it was hard to believe it would ever be in danger of true development unless the county say……………. sold it?

Turns out the Nature Conservancy (part of the group pushing this proposal) ALREADY has an interest in the Cone Ranch. It is listed as a non-terminable unilateral interest. So they appear to already be charged with protecting the Cone Ranch (and also appear to be on the receiving end of funds according to that flow chart if the sale goes through). Anybody else think that is a conflict of interest? Maybe the County uses the Ray Sansom theory regarding conflicts of interests or maybe it is the Ken Hagan theory?

SWIFTMUD is listed as a terminable interest in the property and yet two of their representatives sit on the technical committee for the advisory panel. One of the advisory panel appointees is also a board member of SWIFTMUD and the Chairwoman of that advisory panel is a former Chair of the Swiftmud board. Hmmm, that doesn’t seem all that objective to me.

The obvious question to me is did we really need a panel to study a buy-out proposal for a property that is NOT FOR SALE in order to preserve what is already listed as PRESERVATION land? As I listen to our County Commission cry over decreased tax revenues and upcoming budget cuts (meanwhile their County Administrator is serving up double digit raises to people like Edith Stewart) I wonder how they can justify staff time and taxpayer money to even study this? Maybe Hagan is paying for it?

Balm Civic Association President Marcella Osteen got the final word in this WMNF interview. Her comment about looking at the proposal “with a jaundiced eye” says it all, and she goes on to say that “I would think that any investor is exactly what it says: investor. They’re looking to – let me think about it – make money? So I would be skeptical — anybody that comes in here to buy [Cone Ranch] with dollars would not be looking to make money. And just out of the goodness of their heart to restore it, I don’t think so.”  In case I haven’t said it lately, Thank You Marcella! Considering the past deeds of that County Commission as a whole (excluding Commissioners Ferlita, Beckner and usually Sharpe) forgive us if we don’t trust the rest of you. Just since I have been paying attention they have approved major subdivisions out in BFE, they have launched constant environmental attacks and their staff bald-faced lied to me about a toll road over my house (and you wonder why I have so much fun writing these?)

What can you do? You can contact your County Commissioners regarding Cone Ranch here. Be sure to start with Chairman Ken Half Truth Hagan since he is not only spearheading this project it looks like he is now the first contact point to all of the Commissioners according to George Niemann’s recent article. You can see the documents associated with this production and check for the next meeting on the county’s website. Some of the opposition even have their own Facebook page against this sale which also has updates on it.

My guess is that with elections coming up, the Commissioners will eventually cave to public will and sell this land to ELAPP (the county’s own land preservation program)  where it should be (but I bet they try to spin it to you and me like they are environmental heroes while doing it), so thanks to all those volunteering to go through the motions until then. Seems to me that if they really wanted to do the right thing they would leave the land as is and let ELAPP spend their money on less secure pieces of land that really are in danger of being developed. But this is Hillsborough County, where four of our current Commissioners think a pardoned ex-felon and ahem, campaign donor, was worthy of naming the Moral Courage award after. (For those of you keeping score, those current Commissioners are Hagan, White, Norman and Higginbotham.) So I guess there is no telling what they would do for these big-time potential donors. I hope the county is sincere in only wanting the best outcome for Cone Ranch, but how sad we can’t trust them at their word.

Stay tuned for another episode of Will The County Commission Successfully Be Able To Preserve PRESERVED Land?

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.

By Kelly Cornelius
PoHo contributor and R-LAND activist

Just when you thought that renaming the Moral Courage award after their shuga daddy (and pardoned ex-felon) Ralph Hughes was the low point, the Hillsborough County Commission, led by Chairman Ken Hagan, floats an idea that is starting to smell worse than the reclaimed sewage that some officials want to dump into our aquifer.

Sell the preservation land that is Cone Ranch to private developers … in order to save it!

Chairman Half Truth Hagan thought it might be a good way to preserve Cone Ranch (by subdividing and selling it it private investors). Ever think the day would come when you wished for someone more reasonable like say, Ronda Storms? I watched the presentation made to the Board of County Commissioners on this and I have to say it made Buddy Johnson look prepared (the day he didn’t show up). They slapped up a few nature slides that didn’t even appear to be of the ranch itself. See for yourself here is the video of that meeting. Oh, and in case you haven’t followed this until now, the group pushing the idea to the Commissioners is laden with a bunch of big time Republican donors. Uh-huh.

Here are some quotes from our stellar board during that discussion on May 6th, 2009. (my thoughts are in bold)

>>KEN HAGAN:  THANK YOU, MS. BEAN.
COMMISSIONERS, TODAY I’M GOING TO INTRODUCE WHAT I THINK IS
AN INNOVATIVE APPROACH TO ADDRESSING A CRITICALLY IMPORTANT
ISSUE IN HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, AND THAT IS PREVENTING CONE
RANCH FROM EVER BEING DEVELOPED BY PERMANENTLY PRESERVING
AND RESTORING IT. (restoring what?)

……..and then later Hagan says

FIRST AND FOREMOST, THERE ARE OVER 600 WETLANDS ON CONE
RANCH THAT ARE NOT BEING RESTORED, AND WE CAN DO THAT — WE
CAN RESTORE THESE WETLANDS WITH THIS PROPOSAL.  (now he worries about wetlands?….hmmm…maybe a lucrative wetland mitigation bank in store for these “conservation” buyers?

And later Hagan makes this comment:

THERE’LL BE SOME, YOU KNOW, EXTREMISTS THAT WILL MAKE
SIMPLISTIC STATEMENTS LIKE, WELL, THE COUNTY OWNS THE LAND,
THEREFORE, IT IS PRESERVED, OR, YOU KNOW, WHY CAN’T WE JUST
SIT ON IT,   (I made the suggestion during public comment that the county already owns the land if they really want to preserve it…….Half Truth Hagan thinks that is extreme and simplistic)

then comes the presentation… here are some excerpts from Ken Jones who doesn’t really identify who exactly he is but does give his address like it was public comment.

WE WOULD SUBDIVIDE IT INTO SIX PARCELS, POSSIBLY LESS IF WE
HAD ONE CONSERVATION BUYER THAT WANTED TO BUY 6,000 VERSUS
JUST 2,000.
WE WOULD LEAVE OUR PLAN OPEN TO BEING AMENDED TO ACCOMPLISH
THAT.  (kinda makes ya think they already have the buyer/s doesn’t it?)

IT WOULD BE PREQUALIFIED TO ONLY CONSERVATION BUYERS.  (how does one qualify?)

WE WOULD SET ASIDE 800 ACRES FOR A PUBLIC USE PARK. (it is almost 13,000 acres in total and the public would get 800 while the brokers and the County stand to make millions on this deal) But wait there is more…..

WE’VE HEARD A LOT OF DIFFERENT PROPOSALS OVER THE YEARS
FROM EVERYTHING FROM MOVIE STUDIOS, WHICH IS ONE I DON’T
THINK ACTUALLY EVER SAW THE LIGHT OF DAY, BUT THERE WAS ONE
TO BUILD A MOVIE STUDIO ON CONE RANCH.
THE OTHER THING, OF COURSE, IS TO BUILD 10,000 HOUSES OUT
ON CONE RANCH. (the land is on future county plans at PRESERVATION but good try)

after the presentation Hagan makes this suggestion

MY THOUGHT IS TO ASK EACH COMMISSIONER TO APPOINT ONE
ENVIRONMENTAL LEADER TO SERVE ON THIS PANEL,

Commissioner Kevin Beckner cuts to the chase and the answer he gets is disappointing

MY FIRST QUESTION IS HAVE YOU DISTRIBUTED TO STAFF OR MADE
AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC A WRITTEN PROPOSAL YET OF WHAT YOU
ARE PROPOSING — PROPOSING TO BRING FORWARD TO THE BOARD?
>> I THINK THE PROPOSAL THAT WE PRESENTED TO PAT BEAN AND
SOME STAFF EARLY ON, AS I MENTIONED IN MY PRESENTATION, HAS
SORT OF CHANGED AS WE’VE GONE ALONG BECAUSE WE HAVE
CONTINUALLY SOUGHT FEEDBACK FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL
COMMUNITY, BUT NO, WE HAVE NOT SUBMITTED A FORMAL PROPOSAL
TO ANY GROUP YET BEYOND WHAT YOU SEE HERE TODAY, WHICH WILL
NOW, OF COURSE, BE PART OF THE COUNTY RECORD.
>>KEVIN BECKNER:  OKAY.
AND THAT WAS ONE OF MY LARGER CONCERNS BECAUSE I KNOW WHEN
STAFF ORIGINALLY STARTED LOOKING AT THIS AND I STARTED
ASKING THEM QUESTIONS WHY THERE WASN’T A LOT OF MOVEMENT ON
THIS IS BECAUSE THEY SAID THEY HAD NOT RECEIVED ANYTHING IN
WRITING, AND I WAS ALSO A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT NOT HAVING
ANYTHING IN WRITING, ALTHOUGH I HEARD — I HEARD A VERY
GOOD PRESENTATION.
YOU KNOW, I CERTAINLY WANT TO MAKE SURE WE’VE HAD AN
OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE DETAILS, SO I AM CERTAINLY OPEN
TO YOUR MOTION, MR. HAGAN, PROVIDED THAT BEFORE WE –
BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY MEETINGS THAT MR. JONES
PROVIDES A WRITTEN PROPOSAL WITHIN TEN DAYS TO STAFF, TO
THE PUBLIC, AND TO THE COMMISSIONERS SO WE HAVE AN
OPPORTUNITY TO BEGIN TO REVIEW THE DETAILS OF THE PROPOSAL,
AND AGAIN, AS YOU POINTED OUT, MR. CHAIRMAN, I THINK
TRANSPARENCY IN THE PUBLIC — TO THE PUBLIC IS
EXTRAORDINARILY IMPORTANT, SO I’M OPEN TO SUPPORTING THE
MOTION WITH THAT FRIENDLY AMENDMENT.

and then Commissioner Al “The New Blair” Higginbotham worries that the group won’t have enough time to put something together in writing (earlier in the presentation they said they “have been working on this for the better part of two years” and yet they don’t have any written material….uh-huh) Hey, wouldn’t that timeframe have conflicted with Norman’s ill-fated plans for this land?

Higginbotham: IS TEN DAYS ENOUGH TO COME BACK WITH SOME THOUGHTS?
BECAUSE I KNOW THIS WILL — PROBABLY OVER THE TIME IS GOING
TO CHANGE SIGNIFICANTLY AS WE GET INPUT FROM FOLKS, BUT IS
TEN DAYS ENOUGH, MR. BECKNER AND MR. JONES?

and Norman worries about appointing ..gasp..only environmental people to the board

JIM NORMAN:  YEAH.
IN YOUR MOTION, WHAT YOU BASICALLY SAID IS WE WOULD APPOINT
SOMEONE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL OVERSIGHT.
WHY ARE WE LIMITED TO THAT?

And Commissioner Sharpe weighed in with some common sense
>>MARK SHARPE:  SO LET’S JUST SAY THAT ELAPP — AND LET’S
GET TO ELAPP AS WELL.
I’D LIKE TO HAVE ELAPP — I THINK ELAPP NEEDS TO BE PART OF
THIS DISCUSSION.
I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW — I UNDERSTAND MANY — ELAPP HAS NOT
EXPRESSED AN INTEREST OR MAYBE THEY DIDN’T EXPRESS AN
INTEREST BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT IT WAS ALREADY PROTECTED AND
SO THEY WEREN’T WEIGHING IT IN AS A TOP PRIORITY, BUT I DO
THINK WE NEED TO — BECAUSE TO DO THIS RIGHT WE DON’T WANT
AT SOME POINT ELAPP CHARGING AT THIS PROJECT, SO I THINK WE
NEED TO BRING ELAPP INTO THE CONVERSATION EARLY.

Beckner later added this:

KEVIN BECKNER:  THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.
AND JUST TO CLARIFY OUR CONVERSATION ABOUT PRESENTING
DOCUMENTATION AND A PROPOSAL — I MEAN, FOR ME THIS SLIDE
SHOW DOESN’T SATISFY THAT.

and Hagan weakens with the environmental appointments by the end of the discussion stating:

AT OUR NEXT — NOT OUR NEXT BOARD MEETING, AT THE JUNE 3rd
BOARD MEETING, STAFF WILL COME BACK WITH THE NAMES OF THE
INDIVIDUALS THAT WE — THAT WANT TO BE OUR REPRESENTATIVES.
WE’RE NOT GOING TO NECESSARILY LIMIT IT TO ENVIRONMENTAL
LEADERS, ALTHOUGH THERE CERTAINLY SHOULD BE AN EMPHASIS ON
THAT.

By the end it was decided that they would each appoint someone to the panel and have other agencies and departments involved as well and this will be done at their meeting today. Their picks should be very interesting. My next post will include some of the questions and concerns that several local activists have already voiced to local officials.

The Times reports that commissioners want to study the deal and are appointing the ubiquitous task force for the, um, task:

A panel of environmental leaders will help Hillsborough County commissioners scrutinize a proposal to sell 12,000 acres of public land in the name of preservation.

Commissioners voted unanimously today to consider a proposal to sell off the Cone Ranch well field — nearly 20 square miles of undeveloped land in northeast Hillsborough.

The county’s water department owns the land, which was bought two decades ago for the drinking water that might one day be pumped from the aquifer.

The group bringing the deal to the table has all kinds of hard-right-wing ties outlined in the Times pieces.

Only in Hillsborough would the Captain of Team Sprawl propose to sell environmentally sensitive land already owned by the public …….get this………in order to preserve it!  WTF?

The chairman of the Hillsborough County Commission, Ken Hagan, will be pitching this idea to the rest of the board on May 6, saying it is “to preserve Cone Ranch and ensure that we permanently eliminate the possibility of its development.” (by carving it up into 6 parcels?)  Uh-huh.

According to the above-linked St. Petersburg Times, article the county stands to make $35 million-$45 million and Tampa Bay Water would still retain the pumping rights because the place was purchased as a wellfield in the first place………..yet the potential buyers, who proponents think will be ”wealthy, private caretakers,” won’t be able to develop the land into a big ol’ subdivision. Uh-huh.  This one smells pretty bad to me, especially considering who is pushing it. If the commissioners don’t want the land developed, then they have control over that because it is already owned by Hillsborough County. Sadly, they have control over how ANY piece of land gets developed in this county no matter who owns it come to think of it…………..but good try Hagan.  One of the opponents of the deal is former County Commissioner Jan Platt.  Enough said.

The underlying threats in the article are typical, suggesting that if this isn’t preserved (by subdividing and selling to to private investors) that it could end up for commercial or residential use.  This sounds to me like the same crap we hear at rezoning and land-use battles when developers say if opponents don’t accept their cookie cutter subdvision single family homes that residents could get stuck with something like a trailer park instead.  Of course considering the majority of this BOCC might just pave over their own mothers if the right land-use attorney was asking, maybe a private subdivision/sale IS the lesser of two evils, but I doubt it.  If Cone Ranch sounds familiar it is because it is the same Cone Ranch Commissioner Jim Norman wanted to use for Chumpionship Park.

Also interesting is that one of the people pushing this is Dick Mandt, who the article listed as a prominent Republican donor. I did a search of the SOE site and found he was listed as contributing to Commissioners Hagan, Al “the New Blair” Higginbotham and Mark Sharpe.