|
Eco-Terrorists:
Keep Your Hands Off Our Habitat.
It's Worth Something
from
the Coast News
September 2003
By Jerome Stocks
Mayor of Encinitas, California
Memo
to the FBI agents investigating the recent eco-terrorism
in University City: These arsonists either live here, or
drove here, but they could not have flown into San Diego.
Not if their big
complaint was urban sprawl, as they wrote on the banner
found at the burned out site. Because anyone flying into
Lindbergh Field from the east knows that just minutes
outside of San Diego is nothing but open spaces as far and
wide as the eye can see.
And if that plane
happened to fly over the University City area, these
eco-criminals would have noted that this burned down
apartment complex was smack dab in the middle of the urban
core -- right near the roads, and jobs, and
infrastructure that made this project a model of smart
growth.
Not only are there
miles and miles of open spaces in the East County, there
are more and more areas being preserved closer in as well.
The eco-arsonists are
probably not familiar with the county's Multiple Species
Conservation Plan either. Under this plan, meaningful sections of
critical San Diego habitat have been set aside over the
last ten years. In return, other areas have been set aside
for development.
Arsonist-types and
their sympathizers clearly don't care. They say all
the land should be saved, and none developed. They
also probably don't like a new way we are saving some of
that land - ways that are getting attention as models
throughout the country.
The new way was
created when landowners found that, in return for certain
development rights, they were required to buy or set aside
equal or greater habitat elsewhere.
That means that the
same dirt that just a few years ago was worth less than
nothing is today worth $40,000 to $50,000 an acre as
habitat . And more. And this land has value not
because you can use it to generate rents, but because it
can never be used for anything but homes for birds and
bushes and plants and animals, endangered or otherwise.
This new economic
dynamic has transformed the way landowners treat their
open space. Here's why: A few years ago, a landowner with
open space had to figure out a development
scheme to create value, and knew that the longer
he waited to develop his property, the more likely
environmental objections would surface.
This encouraged them
to use their property as quickly as possible, even if the
economic use was only marginal, such as a strip mall, or
parking lot, or farm, or any or the other uses where you
can make a quick, albeit smaller, buck or two.
But according to SDSU
economics professor Ed Balsdon, the new value of open
space and habitat has changed all that.
Now that open space
has value on the market place, landowners don't have to
worry about getting rid of it so quickly. In fact, they
can hold on to it, knowing that the value of their habitat
will only increase as demand for it increases from other
landowners.
Once habitat acquired
value, San Diego acquired a whole new generation of
conservationists. The more expensive it is, the more
incentive they have to preserve it.
This has caused a little heartburn with the public
agencies that are occasionally in the market for open
space. And short term, they are right: More expensive
habitat means they will be able to buy less of it. But
long term, the more expensive it is, the less local
government will have to buy because there will be more
incentives for private preservation.
To those accustomed
to trying to drive down the value of land so it can be
acquired more cheaply, this new trend is hard to grasp.
But more and more are recognizing that high land prices
will save far more habitat than even the most generous
government can ever buy at low prices.
Eco-criminals must
really hate that. Their dogma is that the
market place is the enemy of the environment. More than
loving the environment, these eco-terrorists loathe the
market place and any good that can come of it.
Final
note to investigators: Maybe that is why they chose San
Diego.
|