In Perpetuity!

On the whole issue of how to preserve the land in the NW Plan as natural open space, City Council today adopted the plan presented by staff – specifically by a joint City/PSB committee that worked on the strategy. The plan deeds and donates the land to the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department to become part of the Franklin Mountains State Park. If for any reason, the covenants which are placed on the land are not followed (use as natural open space and recreation in such an area), then the land reverts back to the City. (Fat chance as a TPWD official from Austin told City Council today.) If it reverts back to the City, then it becomes a City park and a conservation easement will be created with a land trust company at that time. Is the deal perfect? Many argue that a conservation easement should be placed from the very beginning or, at the least, the terms of such an easement should be worked out now. That may have been the best of all possible worlds – but what was proposed was what this Council could accept now. The bottom line for me was stated by Attorney Risher Gilbert in answering concerns that the land might not be preserved in perpetuity if it comes back to the City. Ms. Gilbert said: “It [the land] could be sold, but not developed.” It just doesn’t get more perpetual than that. In fact, the mere fact that Council members were wanting assurances of preservation forever, was in and of itself a sign that this proposal will work. Gilbert even gave assurances that she would add language to the contract that clearly states that the City’s intention is “never to develop the land.”

The team that made the proposal did hear what we were saying as conservationists and environmentalists. They incorporated our thoughts into a plan that would pass PSB and City Council – a huge task. Here's their presentation:

Conservation Strategies

As conservationists and environmentalists, many of us can choose to be unhappy because we didn’t get extra salsa with our chips. But let’s count blessings. First, if the proposal was what could pass and the proposal assures perpetual preservation (with an easement should it come back and plenty of language upfront to define covenants and intentions), then shouldn’t that be acceptable?  I think so and I choose to be happy about it.  Second, we have as conservationists – indeed as all El Pasoans – reaped some benefits from this whole process. We got a better NW Master Plan which utilizes Smart Growth/Smart Code. City Planners are now excited about Green Infrastructure/Low Impact Development and issues about rainwater capture and development strategies that help conserve water – an issue bigger than how to conserve several hundred acres just in the NW Master Plan. The entire concept of conservation easement is acceptable now to PSB members and part of the vocabulary of Council. One year ago and just up to a short while ago we could have all been at odds. Now we can shake hands and walk away as friends no matter what rhetoric or tactics were employed in debate.

Make no mistake: those of us in favor of preserving more land and protecting the environment must remain vigilant and engaged. There is much more to accomplish. Those in the conservation community have a big task ahead to do more educating. This is not to say that those who are not card carrying greenies are dumb. Quite to the contrary, they are thinking people who try to see not just a year from now but a hundred years from now. That more people are talking in terms of conservation means that what got started as a petition signed by 1,600 El Pasoans has been taken to heart by many more people. That heart and mind needs to be nurtured and it won’t be if some are seen as enemies and not the caring, thinking people that they are.

In my mind there is still one big issue outstanding: the preservation of the arroyos (which includes bridges not box culverts). The Low Impact Development engineering is yet to be worked out. The City is working with one of the best firms for doing this: the Crabtree Group. Still will we end up with concrete canvasses for taggers? Also, will we have a plan that takes into consideration the width of the arroyos in a 100 year flood scenario and not just a 50 year or less scenario?

City Council also recommended  Alternative 1 for a new access to the State Park. In addition, after hearing from Dr. Richard Bonart, they recommended a safe animal passage near the current entrance to the Park. The new access road which follows the small development area north of Transmountain and the proposed resort/park headquarters would be built as a Low Impact Development project (another leap forward) and can be configured in a way that is acceptable to the State Park protecting any sensitive areas. This alternative allows for money to remain on the table for a safe (and useable) animal corridor, hike and bike paths and the construction of a deer fence. I’m in agreement with Representative Niland and City Planner Gallinar that the small developed area north of the highway can be a place for outdoor supplies for hiking, biking, mountain climbing, etc. Again, the idea is to invite people into the outdoors – a sure way to make a conservationist and environmentalist out of anyone.

Of course, all of the above is my opinion and many of my readers will disagree in whole or in part. Your frank (but respectful) comments are always welcome. My attitude is this:  You celebrate if you get a touchdown but perhaps don’t make the extra point. You keep playing to score more points and, at the end of four quarters and a long season, you win the game and then the championship. Much more than that – you have a helluva fun time playing.

Finally, one last hurrah for El Paso sent to me by the guy who probably loves the lore of El Paso better than anyone – Jackson Polk. Read a July 2012 Chicago Sun-Times piece written by Laura Emerick: Architecture, art and history all meld in El Paso.