APB agenda 122000 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Page 4 Nov. -Dec. 2000 farmland preservation report California voters tally mixed results on land protection continued from page 3 Ohio law precluded government entities from holding easements. The governor will request the state program be structured to provide 75 percent of project costs with localities providing a 25 percent local match, which can be in the form of easement donation or bargain sale, according to Wise. California California voters produced a real mixed bag of decisions on measures involving tax increases or bond issues for land protection. Countywide measures surprisingly failed in the ag powerhouse counties of Napa and Sonoma, and in Placer and San Luis Obispo Counties. In Placer County, which includes the northern half of Lake Tahoe, a proposed dedicated sales tax in- crease of one - quarter cent for 75,000 acres of open space purchases and easements failed by 72.6 percent of the vote. The increase would have generated $200 million over 20 years. In San Luis Obispo County, where residents have become accustomed to innovative land protection schemes including a transfer of devel- opment credits program to save critical coastal spaces, 59 percent of voters rejected the idea of having the final say in whether agricultural lands are rezoned. Sonoma County ranks fifth nationally for farmland acres preserved and first in the amount of money available for preservation, but voters . rejected a plan by the Greenbelt Alliance to freeze zoning for 30 years, preventing changes unless voters approve them. The measure was voted down by 57.4 percent of the vote. However, the city of Sonoma approved an urban growth bound- ary by 63.5 percent. Statewide, urban growth boundary (UGB) measures fared moderately, with just five of nine approved. Californians may not have felt urgent about local land protection, since last March, in the state's primary election, they approved bond issues totaling $2 billion for watershed protection, parks, clean water, clean air and coastal protec- tion. The measure allocated $25 million for farm- land preservation. According to the California Planning and Development Report, 21 of 34 "slow growth" measures on local ballots passed and 13 of 22 "pro- growth" measures were defeated, making sloe growth proponents the victors in 34 of 55 measures, or 62 percent. However, the failed Sonoma and San Luis Obispo measures were closely watched and noted as serious losses. Rhode Island Rhode Island voters approved a $34 million bond issue for land conservation, but just $5 million will go to the farmland preservation program, according to program director Ken Ayers. However, Ayers said, "the other monies can be used to protect farms for other purposes," such as open space. Rhode Island's farmland preservation pro- gram has consistently lagged behind neighbor states in funding and implementing farmland protection. It's last allocation of $2 million didn't go far. Perhaps the larger measure of success in the state was the passage of all 12 local measures that were placed on town ballots for open space and farmland protection, totaling $17 million. Several of the measures mentioned purchase of develop- ment rights and agricultural preservation. "What that means for us is that our $5 million will go a lot further," Ayers said. Other states In Colorado, open space and ranchland protec- tion is conducted by Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO), a quasi - governmental agency through grants to organizations from lottery proceeds, but there is no state program for agricultural lands specifically. With 15 local land protection meas- continue to page 5