|
Deal on Crow's Nest criticized
Environmentalists still fear development on Crow's Nest
BY KAFIA HOSH
Date published: 12/20/2007
BY KAFIA HOSH
Stafford County's plan to buy a portion of the Crow's Nest peninsula will not save the environmentally sensitive forest, according to local activists.
At a meeting Tuesday, the Board of Supervisors agreed to purchase 1,720 acres of Crow's Nest for $19 million, with a two-year option to purchase an additional 1,200 acres for $16.2 million.
But local environmentalists say the land could still be developed.
"By permanently protecting only a portion of the peninsula, they're practically guaranteeing the rest of the peninsula will be developed," said Cecilia Kirkman, founder of Save Crow's Nest.
Crow's Nest sits between Potomac and Accokeek creeks. It includes more than 1,000 acres of forest and is home to rare plant and animal species.
Environmentalists have argued the 1,720-acre-parcel Stafford agreed to buy is the least developable land because it contains most of Crow's Nest marshes and steep slopes.
However, county officials say the chosen parcel is the most environmentally sensitive portion.
"The state deemed it the most critical and the board used the state's good judgment in making their decision," said Deputy County Administrator Anthony Romanello.
The parcel the county is purchasing could hold 370 lots, according to the landowner's attorney.
"The county did not buy a swamp," said Clark Leming, who represents Crow's Nest owner K&M Properties of McLean. "It's very valuable land."
"Those are high-ground, dirt lots that can be developed," added Aquia District Supervisor Paul Milde, whose district includes Crow's Nest. "The portion that we ended up with is consistent with the overall buildable surface. We really got our money's worth."
Stafford is buying the 1,720-acre-tract with a $9.5 million grant from the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation, and a $9.5 million, low-interest loan from the Department of Environmental Quality.
The county has two years to secure $16.2 million for the remaining 1,200 acres. If Stafford is unable to find state or federal funds, then the purchase will go on a voter referendum where taxpayers will decide if they should buy the tract.
But in the wake of state budget cuts, some doubt the county will receive any more aid.
"There's no guarantee that the second half will be purchased or reserved," said George Washington District Supervisor Pete Fields, who voted against the sales agreement.
|
ENVIRONMENT: Crow's Nest marshland is in pristine condition and represents some of the best examples found in the state, according to biologists. Rare plants found on the land include showy orchid, Adam and Eve plants, black snakeroot, cut-leaf toothwort, common alum root, pubescent sedge and silvery glade fern. Endangered species such as bald eagles nest on the property.
HISTORY: In the 1600s, Patawomeck Indians lived on nearby Indian Point and most likely hunted and camped on Crow's Nest. Several unfinished stone points found on the tract indicate that Indians once used the property as a stone-tool-making workshop.
|
|
Date published: 12/20/2007
Most recent reader comments:
BOS action was secret and quick - Strange indeed
(posted by
WeimCity
, Dec. 20, 2007 7:56 pm)  
I have already quoted that the BOS action reeks of something deathly wrong. The County will not have any revenue colelction from the land acquisition. Where do you think the payment of the loans will fall on? Why wasn't a voter referendum mad to allow taxpayers to decide if they should buy any of that tract? By this action, BOS have just made the remaining section much more treasured and valued for a residence? IMHO, This whole situation is suspect of something inappropriate. It is a bad day for us
Article ends on a sour note
(posted by
travelin_bone
, Dec. 20, 2007 12:03 pm)  
I stand behind saving the Crow's Nest 100% but Ms. Little suggesting that the land be condemned so that the price is driven down and acquired that way is not only unethical, but sets the county up for a big legal battle and sets a precendent for them to do it similar cases. Landowners shouldn't have to worry about being strong armed out of their property.
correction
(posted by
cuhollow
, Dec. 20, 2007 10:43 am)  
Eagles aren't endangered.
Better something than nothing at all
(posted by
tortuga
, Dec. 20, 2007 9:05 am)  
After a decade of trying to acquire this land and little success to date, this purchase is indeed a step in the right direction. It may not be the "best case scenario" but it opens the door and allows us to protect the majority of the land. For those that think saving Crow's Nest is a waste of money, it has been shown to actually save taxpayer dollars by not having to build the infrastructure necessary to support the added population such as roads, schools and utilities. To the BOS, Thanks!!!
"Conservationists" my foot
(posted by
dvlmn073
, Dec. 20, 2007 8:21 am)  
If the people of the Colaition to Save Crow's Nest are so heck bent on saving it why aren't they out raising big dollars to purchase it themselves at "fair market value". If you are actually talking being fair in the price there is no need to condemn it first. What they actually want is the gov't to steal the land for some underpriced value so they can feel good about themselves without actually having to make any personal sacrifices (donate instead of eating out maybe) themselves.
|