A subject I've taken up here from time to time is the preservation of public lands. The recent passage of Michigan House Bill 5050 brings the issue once again to the fore.
The bill authorizes the sale of 475 acres of state forest in Iosco county to a golf course developer who already has several courses in the area. The logic behind this, of course, is to attract more upscale tourists and generate (mostly seasonal) jobs in what is admittedly a depressed area. If you've read this blog for a while, you can probably guess what I think of this.
I'll just make a couple of comments. First, I fear the precedent it sets. An evaluation of the property finds it currently hosts "hiking, berry picking, and very light hunting activity by local residents." This could describe many parcels of state land. And since blueberries or after-work hunting will never generate the dollars that golf courses (or amusement parks, or water parks, or Executive Conference Retreats)will, can we expect the state to liquidate more comparable acreage to patch gaps in its budget?
Secondly, this is a blatant transfer of wealth from the public to the private sphere (scarcely a unique event during the last 30 years, and the one redistributive scheme conservatives never protest). Real estate reverse Robin Hood. Yes, the state will be paid "fair market value" for the land, but that doesn't reimburse the loss to those who currently use the land and will in the future. The windfall for the state is a one-time occurrence--the loss to the public will be ongoing.
"Michigan needs to do more to attract high income tourists from out of state. Primitive camping, small town diners, and low-impact recreation won't do that." So say the proponents of this land sale. This gives me the feeling I'm being written out of Michigan's cultural script.
No comments:
Post a Comment