By Si Cantwell
It appears the "goodliest land" isn't going to be saved, at least not this year.
In
February, I wrote about a movement seeking a bond referendum to raise
conservation spending by $200 million a year for five years. Land for
Tomorrow's organizers stopped in Wilmington as they traveled around
enlisting support. Their report was titled Saving the Goodliest Land,
adapted from an enthusiastic assessment of North Carolina by an
explorer in 1585.
Twin bills introduced last year in the House
and Senate seemed to be on a safe track: 75 of the 120 House members
and 22 of the 50 state senators signed on as sponsors. With more than
half the General Assembly claiming credit for it, you'd think nothing
could stop this legislation.
But Gov. Mike Easley did.
The
House and Senate versions of the bill have been stuck in committees
since May. Leaders do that when they don't want to permit an up or down
vote.
Why? The governor didn't want the state to incur more debt.
"There are certain limits to how much debt we can take on," said Dan Gerlach, Easley's senior policy adviser for fiscal affairs.
"We
just got out of a budget hole," he said. He said the governor didn't
want to "plant the seeds" for another budget disaster like the train
wreck we had early in the decade.
Gerlach referred me to a
letter to the governor from Robert Powell, state controller, which said
Moody's has not restored the state's AAA bond rating. In the letter,
Powell says the state can absorb only $214 million a year or $1.07
billion over five years of debt.
Gerlach cited spending on a
badly needed new state health laboratory, psychiatric hospitals to
replace Goldsboro's Cherry Hospital and one in Morganton, and a new
hospital for Central Prison in Raleigh, which total $550 million.
Worthwhile goals, but so is conservation.
Land
for Tomorrow wanted to ask voters in November to approve using debt to
increase conservation spending by $200 million a year for five years.
I
think the voters should have a chance to decide. As I wrote a few
months ago, by 2030 we'll have more people than Ohio, Michigan or New
Jersey. We've lost a million acres to development over the past decade,
Land for Tomorrow says. I don't see that runaway train slowing down.
The
money would help preserve 6,000 miles of rivers, wetlands, floodplains
and coastal waters; 50,000 acres of working farms; 25,000 acres of
working forests; 94,000 acres of parks and trails; 150,000 acres of
game lands and natural areas; and 50,000 acres of land visible from
scenic highways. And it would renovate 350 historic landmarks.
The state's $1 billion would leverage $1.7 billion in federal, local and private sources, the group says.
Not only will waiting raise the cost, but the land might be lost forever.
Instead
of sidelining this effort, our elected leaders should have worked with
Land for Tomorrow and its 225 partner governments and organizations to
see how it could be accomplished.
Crawford Crenshaw, Land for
Tomorrow's steering committee chairman, said the organization will try
again next session if last-ditch efforts fall short this year.
Since more than half the General Assembly likes the idea, maybe it'll go a little further next time around.
You can reach Si Cantwell at 343-2364 or Si.Cantwell@StarNewsOnline.com.
