The land bank was voted in by the people of San Juan County, to preserve land in perpetuity. It has done a wonderful job. We now have 18.7 percent of our county in National, State, or county parks or preserves. We have an additional 13.7 percent set aside as designated forest land, bringing the total to 32.4 percent of the land in San Juan County is preserved in some way. That is a lot of property, and is a reflection of how much the people of SJC care for the environment.
However, the land bank is now in danger of becoming a bureaucracy. The number of employees has swollen from four employees just six years ago (2004 annual report sjclandbank.org) to seven full time employees and three part time. And they have made it clear that their current job is to keep their current job, as is the job of any employee. If the land bank does not pass this time around, they have until the fall of 2014 to get it passed. That means it will come up again and again, probably in January and February special elections when many people are gone, which seems to be the current method of getting taxes passed.
But another item to look at is the funding. The 2010 annual report shows that over three MILLION dollars was acquired from “external acquisition funds.” That means from state and national grants. So millions of our national debt was spent on the land bank. While it made some good purchases in 2010, it is time to stop borrowing on the national level, and a good place to start is right here. Statewide, those funds which would be applied for in grants, can be used to make our local state parks accessible to ALL Washington state residents again, not just the ones who can afford to use the parks.
The land bank will continue to be subsidized, to maintain properties. As you saw on your most recent property tax statement, the county council has voted the land bank a “Conservation Futures Tax.” This is a little over 3 cents per $1000 assessment of property, bringing in $269,346 in 2010. While this would not pay even the current administration costs ($291,693), if the staff were trimmed down and went into a stewardship mode, it would be a lot of stewardship. This amount will be increased yearly as much as the law allows as well.
The Land Bank is a good idea. It has done a great job. Its purpose has been met. Its job is now to steward the land preserved. The function has changed, and needs to reflect that. VOTE NO on the LandBank Renewal, Proposition 1.
