Washington:Plum Creek bribes Seattle with forest easements in exchange for overdevelopment-oriented rulebreaking
Cleaning up Puget Sound begins far from the shoreline. Conserving
forestlands and watersheds around urban areas creates healthy buffer
zones and limits future development with its pollution destined for
the Sound. No surprise the agency charged with Sound cleanup was a
cheerleader for an extraordinary conservation deal King County reached
with Seattle-based Plum Creek Timber.

The company will still own, manage and be able to log the 45,500
acres in Southeast King County, but future housing development is
precluded — forever. No tax money is involved. Plum Creek receives 514
development credits it can sell to developers looking for more density
on projects in urban areas. King County partners with local
communities to allow another extra floor of building height or more
living units per credit, which are bought and sold in their own
market. Innovation and cooperation between willing private-property
owners and government officials have helped build what King County
Executive Ron Sims describes as a wall against sprawl, the protection
of forestlands adjacent to urban areas. The conservation deal with
Plum Creek echoes and complements the purchase of development rights
four years ago by King County from the Hancock Timber Resource Group.
The company received $22 million for development rights on 90,000
acres of its Snoqualmie Forest. Sims and Plum Creek Chief Executive
Officer Rick Holley signed a conservation easement Tuesday that covers
a swath of land twice the size of Bellevue.One of the forward-looking
benefits of the easement is the protection of the Upper Green River
Watershed, which provides drinking water for the city of Tacoma and
other communities. Conserving forestlands gives future generations
options and choices, and helps guide and maximize public investment.
Protecting resources as basic as drinking water supplies is an
extraordinary bonus. Transferring development rights on property that
appears remote and distant from the press of civilization in 2008 will
be applauded as brilliant foresight by generations to come.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2008505202_edit14plum.html
Posted via email from Deane’s posterous
Well, it can be criticized, all right, but give me forestry every time over residential, commercial and industrial development. Then there is hope, if enough pressure is applied and encouragement given, that sensitive areas within the easement can be conserved and timber management be on (as much as possible) a sustainable basis. Is there a better alternative available?