OPEN SPACE DISTRICT FUNDING
By BLEYS W. ROSE
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
Sunday, March 26, 2006
The decades-old debate over using tax dollars to buy open space will be rekindled this week when advocates of the quarter-cent sales tax unveil details of their pitch for a tax extension.
During the 16 years that the Agricultural Preservation and Open Space District has used the tax to acquire land, the agency has received praise for its forward-thinking and well-funded approach to saving open space.
But it has also received criticism from farmers who say the "agricultural preservation" aspect of the tax gets short shrift, and from others who mutter about the paucity of public access to the land.
"There is a general feeling that this is more often referred to as an 'open space district' to the exclusion of agricultural preservation," said Lex McCorvey, executive director of the Sonoma County Farm Bureau. "Our feeling is that it has strayed from its original intent."
The $17 million raised annually was used to purchase 34,000 wildlife acres, 33,000 farmland acres and 17,000 acres designated community separators.
McCorvey said some Farm Bureau members are troubled by poor maintenance of the district's agricultural acquisitions and easements. The group that represents about 3,000 farmers and ranchers will suggest some changes in the district's spending plans before deciding whether to support the tax extension.
District representatives acknowledge that to gain support for renewing the tax a greater emphasis will need to be put on saving farmland owned by dairies and ranchers, and on funneling some money into recreation programs that open parkland to the public.
"The publicity that accompanies park purchases understandably generates pressure for public access and use," said Andrea Mackenzie, Open Space District general manager.
She said "a drafting oversight" in the 1990 tax proposal made it lack a specific commitment to agricultural land even though it was mentioned in the title of the proposal. The measure said tax funds will be spent on community separators, scenic corridors, critical habitat areas and biologically significant areas affected by development.
An outline of proposals on future spending of the money will be presented Tuesday to Sonoma County supervisors by district officials. Supervisors have until Aug. 11 to place it on the November ballot.
Conservation Action, the county's leading environmental advocacy group, plans on supporting the tax extension. However, Co-Director Craig Litwin said the group will continue to press the district to spend tax money on community separators that stem urban sprawl.
"People love open space -- that much we get from all the door-to-door canvassing we do," Litwin said.
Mackenzie said budget constraints in park agencies in state, county and municipal governments make them reluctant to adopt operating funds for recreation programs on land bought by the district. She said that isn't likely to change, so plans for "limited expenditures" will be part of the district's tax spending plan.
Supporters concede the tax extension faces a tougher path to approval this time. In 1990, the regional economy was in better shape and state law required only a simple majority for approval.
It passed by 55 percent to 45 percent. But subsequent changes in state law mean the tax extension will require two-thirds approval by voters.
Groups that opposed the tax in 1990, such as the Sonoma County Taxpayers Association, say they will wait to hear details of the district's spending plan before taking a position on the tax.
You can reach Staff Writer Bleys W. Rose at 521-5431 or brose@pressdemocrat.com.
© The Press Democrat. For copyright information view our User Agreement