Dear HCN,
I read with interest and
enjoyment your editorial about our former neighbor, Tom Chapman
(HCN, 8/2/99). Of course, the problem is that when Congress created
the wilderness lands in 1964, it chose to deal with inholdings
sometime in the future. The value of those inholdings, like most
real estate, has risen significantly since then, and Congress now
needs to deal with these increased values to protect the wonderful
wilderness it created for us.
But the Forest
Service and Bureau of Land Management have to use appraisal rules
that cause the agencies to act like a Realtor’s nightmare client.
If the client owns a property, it is priceless; if the client wants
to buy a property, it is worthless. Most landowners I know who have
tried to work with these agencies come away angry and frustrated
because of the agency appraisal.
A few years
ago, I became involved with some land the BLM hoped to protect for
recreation. The land bordered the north side of the Colorado River
near Loma, Colo. There were three adjoining private parcels the BLM
wanted, the parcels which controlled the riverfront for a couple of
miles starting at the Loma boat ramp, which the BLM hoped to
expand. The easternmost property was about 600 acres, the middle
property was 50 acres and the next property, also known as
Horsethief, was more than 1,000 acres. The properties were for sale
for $600,000, $80,000 and $1 million-plus, respectively. BLM was
attempting to buy the most critical property first, which was the
600-acre parcel.
I had helped with the first BLM
appraisal of the 600-acre parcel by supplying comparable sale
prices. I also volunteered to help find an exchange or obtain a
conservation easement for no fee. The 600 acres first appraised for
around $250,000 (about $400/acre). Not long after that, I handled
the sale of the 50-acre parcel to some friends of mine for $80,000.
The BLM did a second appraisal of the 600-acre parcel, hoping to
get closer to the $600,000 asking price. I again helped supply
comparable values. The $1,600/acre price paid for the 50 acres
supported the $600,000 price for the 600 acres. But the BLM
appraisal rules would not allow the use of the sale. The appraisal
said the buyers were “uninformed.” My friends still live on and
love their 50 acres. They think it was a
bargain.
The 600 acres did sell for $600,000 and
the BLM lost the chance to protect the property. The owners of the
600 acres wanted to sell to the BLM, but came to believe that the
BLM wanted to steal their property.
In the past,
the Forest Service and BLM have often treated private property
rights with callous arrogance. The focus that Tom Chapman has
placed on government land policies has improved the way the
agencies deal with private landowners. That same focus has helped
organizations like the Wilderness Land Trust to succeed in
protecting land the agencies cannot protect on their
own.
Government appraisal rules need to recognize
the “public value” of land. To appraise private land that threatens
a national treasure as grazing land (the land’s lowest value) is
ludicrous. And, that is exactly the way many of these appraisals
have been made. A fair “public value” would be much higher than
grazing.
So, I hope we don’t strip lands of
wilderness designation just to spite landowners who want a fair or
even a high price for the land they are lucky enough or farsighted
enough to own. It would be much better to appraise the threatening
private land at a price that reflects its value to the public –
us.
Richard
Montrose
Glenwood Springs,
Colorado
The writer describes
himself as a “recovering Realtor.”
This article appeared in the print edition of the magazine with the headline Appraisals are the problem.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
