What is your State Democrat doing for you?

[deerhunter_matt]

Not to offend any democrats who are on here, but I am livid. Our state state treasurer is planning on gobbling up 'unusable' state-owned land throughout the state to develop it. One such place is a piece of my nearest public hunting land, Auburn Marsh, a damn SWAMP!!! This guy is an idiot, and everyone should be writing or calling to complain. He is saying that valuable conservation lands are 'useless' I am so pissed. And the democrats get on the republicans about misuse of land. Here is the aticle in the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

http://www.cleveland.com/search/index.ssf?/base/isope/1170246630231520.xml?isope&coll=2


GAAAAAA!!!!:rant: :rant: :rant: :rant:
Sorry if I ruffled any feathers.

[XX78]

Has Ohio ever got a land deal for you
But some NE Ohio parcels on list of unused property not candidates for development
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Aaron Marshall and John Horton
Plain Dealer Reporters

Columbus -- Hey, pal, you wanna buy some swampland? It's prone to seasonal floods, but wait until you see the parking available for the beavers, foxes and waterfowl.

No, that's not the worst real estate pitch in the world. It's part of an idea floated Tuesday by state Treasurer Richard Cordray as he sought to "stimulate the bureaucracy" of state government by working to compile a comprehensive list of state-owned properties with an eye toward future development.

Cordray, a Democrat who took office this month, picked a piece of property that seemed to cry out for development -- a 50-acre abandoned quarry in Columbus -- to announce his proposal at a frigid news conference. He said his office so far had identified 446 state-owned properties across 20 counties that his staff suspected were underused or abandoned.

The former quarry made a "Top 10" list of state-owned parcels that Cordray believes to be "the most advantageous to develop."

But also on Cordray's top 10 list is a 108-acre parcel in Geauga County -- valued at $629,000 -- that is part of the Auburn Marsh. An Ohio Department of Natural Resources description of the marsh notes that it has "poor drainage" and is "subject to seasonal floods."

Geauga County Planning Director David Dietrich called Cordray's proposal "pretty far off the charts.'

"It would be nice if someone in Columbus picked up the phone every once in a while and called us local yokels," Dietrich said. "The marsh is an important area to preserve and protect. That land's at the bottom of the list as far as what should be developed."

Told of the swampy situation, Cordray said, "We don't know and we're not pretending to know" the best use for any of the property. He said that could include private development or a public use as a park or nature conservancy.

"But almost certainly sitting mired on a list of state properties with no one giving any thought to it is not the right answer," said Cordray, whose office eyeballed only some of the top 10 parcels before selecting them. "I will say the land value is $629,000 and it's a very large parcel, so somebody sure seems to think there is some real value there."

In fact, there are plans for the tract. A land-use plan adopted by Auburn Township trustees calls for the marsh to be designated as "open space' for conservation, according to Dietrich.


Cordray said the Top 10 were selected because of size, land value and location.

Another Northeast Ohio property in the Top 10 was a two-acre tract along Painesville-Warren Road in Lake County valued at $31,300. But it can't be sold off to anyone because it's part of a $7 million state road realignment project designed to straighten out a dangerous curve in the road.

Dale Schiavoni, planning administrator for Ohio Department of Transportation District 12, said the state bought the land in 2003 with plans to straighten the curve near Fay Road. He said a high number of crashes occurred at the curve.


During his quarry-side news conference, Cordray emphasized the possible economic development that could be generated by selling off what he called underused properties.

He estimated that the state could recoup "well over $100 million" from the sale of the properties based on the results of the 20-county survey completed so far. Geauga, Lake and Medina counties were among the 20, while Cuyahoga, Lorain, Portage and Summit counties haven't been reviewed yet. Cordray hopes to complete the statewide review this year.

Cordray's proposal also includes working with Gov. Ted Strickland to develop a system that would allow the public and private sectors to submit competing proposals for the properties.

Plain Dealer Reporter Maggi Martin contributed to this story.

To reach these Plain Dealer reporters:

amarshall@plaind.com, 1-800-228-8272; jhorton@plaind.com, 1-800-962-1167

[XX78]

This is a very important topic for the Ohio Sportsman. Although it does not directly affect many people on this site, it affects us all indirectly. As outdoorsmen and women in Ohio we face an uphill battle when it comes to public land owned by the state. Ohio stand owned land is my most standards good hunting, but I believe the state ranks 45th in the amount of state owned land set aside for public hunting and fishing. While the ODNR is a dept often overlooked and raided for extra funds, it still has managed to add (albeit slowly) land for this purpose. Yesterday the treasurer of Ohio made a recommendation that could work against the DNR's goals of land acquisition. In an effort to help balance the state's budget Treasurer Richard Cordray recommended that an 108 acre parcel of the Auburn Marsh Wildlife Area be deemed as an area the state could put on the market. For Northeast Ohio this is a huge deal on many levels.

Northern Ohio (especially the eastern part of the state), has a limited amount of acreage available for public hunting. Although that is starting to change (slowly with some park systems in the area recently introducing bow-hunting with mixed reviews from the public) we can not afford to loose land that we already have. The Marsh is a vital area that is well utilized by many sportsmen, even 5 or 6 on this very website.

Secondly the land sale (if it ever goes thru) would gobble up 23% of the present wildlife area. Apply that percentage to your favorite Wildlife area or National Forest, and it really begins to hit home.

Thirdly as the article explains, the area designated for "potential development" is all marsh land. I know it is, I’m there all the time. There is no way of developing the land without reducing the all ready limited amount of wetlands in the State. This marsh is a very important staging area for migratory waterfowl and songbirds. In what other ways would development affect this ecosystem? I am almost positive the City of Akron who depends on the surrounding watershed to supply their region with fresh water would also want some answers.

In addition I would like to ask, where will it stop? If the state managed to sell this undesirable part of the Marsh, what is stopping it from selling the rest? For that matter what will stop the state from starting to move to other areas? Am I paranoid? I’d like to say I’m cautious and passionate about preserving the resources we already have, while trying to acquire more.

I encourage you to contact these several contacts to voice your opinion:

Geauga County Game Warden Scott Denamem: (330) 644 3802 Ext 3218
Dan Cramer ( A land resource manager District 3) (330) 644 2293
ODNR Real Estate Division (614) 265 6395
District 98 Rep Matt Dolan (614) 644-5088
Ohio Senator Tim Grendell (614)644-7718

[Milo]

I believe GEO W Bush was proposing to sell national forest land to help counties that have school districts where the majority of land is taken up by the government. Why not just fix the system thats in place? :idea: maybe make it fair and equal? :yikes: :yikes:

[Milo]

Forgot to say that wetlands can be moved (background snickering). look into what wetland credit banks are. What I don;t agree with them on in this instance is that we are taking wetlands from one county and transfering them to a different watershed in a different county.

[XX78]

Milo,

Sorry, I'm not sure where you stand on this issue.


This isn't about who voted for who, a republican vs. democrat, its not even completely a wetland issue its about loosing valuable resources. We can make a difference. Start making contacts with the people that need your vote and tell what is important to you. We can't shrug our shoulders and play dead with this.

[deerhunter_matt]

I guess I didn't really mean to make it seem like a rep/dem thing. It just makes me mad that someone would even propose such a thing without even doing the slightest bit of homework. Here is the picture from the plain dealer about the proposed area:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v321/mahar421/random/auburn.jpg

If you have been there, you would know that this map is a little old, and much of that area, especially the northeast and the southeast corners of the red dotted line are all very large beaver ponds. Even if the development avoided these ponds, the run-off from construction, followed by the run-off from the suburban housing development would absolutely destroy this delicate ecosystem, and that is what I am upset about. In this are, there isn't so much of that left, that's why it is a much more touchier subject than say drilling in Alaska.

[Freedomrules3]

It sounds to me like a newbie has some money on his mind or just trying to get his name out. I doubt it will even get off the ground but you never know. usually if you follow the money it will lead you to who's behind it all. I'm sure he has some development friends who want to get a hold of that land.

as far as Dem or Rep, they all sleep toe to toe :whistle:

[deerhunter_matt]

It sounds to me like a newbie has some money on his mind or just trying to get his name out. I doubt it will even get off the ground but you never know. usually if you follow the money it will lead you to who's behind it all. I'm sure he has some development friends who want to get a hold of that land.

as far as Dem or Rep, they all sleep toe to toe :whistle:

All of what you said is so very true...

I still don't trust dems with my hunting and gun rights though.

[XX78]

When I spoke with Mr. Cramer yesterday he said that the Treasurer's announcement was the first time they had heard about this. So naturally there is will be some lag time with answers. Mr. Cramer thanked me for the call and said the ODNR is in an active land acquisition mode, and said what could happen at the marsh is against what they are trying to accomplish. He encouraged me to call my legislators and tell them they should put a hault to this idea, ideas similar to this, and convey to them that we should preserve more land for public hunting and fishing.

[XX78]

Where are all the opinionated people when you need them?

[deerhunter_matt]

I was walking around the marsh this morning and decided to take some pics of where this gguy supposedly wants to develop. Bear with me, this is off a cell phone camera, so it's not the best of quality.

Nice little panorama I doctored up. The proposed development would go to the left and stretch about to the right of the picture. I was standing about at the bottom edge of the red dotted line shown in the picture above.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v321/mahar421/random/auburn_panorama.jpg

I was standing on this beaver dam to take those pictures.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v321/mahar421/random/auburn3.jpg

This shows the pond a little better.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v321/mahar421/random/auburn4.jpg

[XX78]

Can't wait to see them when I get home.

[Andy Gehle]

If I thought this really might happen I'd be more vocal.
But I think you have to see it for what it is. We've got a bunch of new legislators who just took office and they're jockeying to make a name for themselves. This dude, Cordray, may or may not have a decent idea once all the poo poo gets cleaned up. But in his own words, this is simply a list of land in the mix. "Cordray said the Top 10 were selected because of size, land value and location."

Any projects starts with a discovery phase, and this one seems to be even in the infancy of discovery. Nor is it even a project yet. Not even close.
So they're just collecting information at this point. No half-assed developer on the planet is going to pay $One Mill for some wetlands that not only is prone to flooding, but actually designed for it. Not to mention all the hassle to go through with the BS Match a Wetland developer deal.

So Auburn Marsh will be thrown out, as will most of the properties once even the preliminary discoveries begin. But maybe the state will indeed find some acreage that has essentially been discarded, and do something positive with it.

I'd much rather see sportsmen and the ODOW get behind the idea and have first crack and discounted pricing for the ODOW.
I fished, more than a few times, an old abandoned quarry that was purchased by Metro Parks a few years back. It was one of those that everyone always wanted to sneak into, and here comes the Metro Parks who buys it up and then opens it up to public fishing right away. And they are managing it for trophy fish.

This will be a good one to watch, but I don't really think anything is going to come of Auburn Marsh being sold off. From what I've seen, all the state owned marshes are expanding, not contracting. (Anyone been up to Big Island the last 5 years?)

[Milo]

If I thought this really might happen I'd be more vocal.
But I think you have to see it for what it is. We've got a bunch of new legislators who just took office and they're jockeying to make a name for themselves. This dude, Cordray, may or may not have a decent idea once all the poo poo gets cleaned up. But in his own words, this is simply a list of land in the mix. "Cordray said the Top 10 were selected because of size, land value and location."

Any projects starts with a discovery phase, and this one seems to be even in the infancy of discovery. Nor is it even a project yet. Not even close.
So they're just collecting information at this point. No half-assed developer on the planet is going to pay $One Mill for some wetlands that not only is prone to flooding, but actually designed for it. Not to mention all the hassle to go through with the BS Match a Wetland developer deal.

So Auburn Marsh will be thrown out, as will most of the properties once even the preliminary discoveries begin. But maybe the state will indeed find some acreage that has essentially been discarded, and do something positive with it.

I'd much rather see sportsmen and the ODOW get behind the idea and have first crack and discounted pricing for the ODOW.
I fished, more than a few times, an old abandoned quarry that was purchased by Metro Parks a few years back. It was one of those that everyone always wanted to sneak into, and here comes the Metro Parks who buys it up and then opens it up to public fishing right away. And they are managing it for trophy fish.

This will be a good one to watch, but I don't really think anything is going to come of Auburn Marsh being sold off. From what I've seen, all the state owned marshes are expanding, not contracting. (Anyone been up to Big Island the last 5 years?)
thought the same thing andy. good post. developers are greedy, not stupid

[XX78]

I honestly appreciate what the Treasurer is doing, that is finding a way to help balance the budget without raising taxes. Secondly I realize very clearly what stage the talks are in. With that being said I do think it is important to promote awareness immediately and set a tone that the thought of messing with Public Hunting and Fishing areas will not be tollerated. The area as explained is swampland, but the rest of the Public area could be quite buildable. This W.A. is rapidly being encroached by $400,000-900,000 houses on 2.5-5 acre lots that are selling for min $100,000 alone. With the right amount of know-how a developer may be willing to take the task on. I'd hate to see that happen.

As anything is possible, I want to send a message to these people. I live where I do because I didn't ever think that this could be remotely possible.

[Andy Gehle]

I see what you're saying.
I may still be in more of a wait and watch mode. I will promise you that if this looks like it may get even a little legs under it, than I'll call the heck out of the numbers you posted.

Since you'll most likely be privy to more local news of this, maybe you could provide any updates as they come out.
I'd also make sure you are at the March 4th Division Offices Open House to find out more. I'll certainly ask about the whole proposition at Division 1 and see if there's anything around here on the block.

[deerhunter_matt]

Good points about the quality of land, but like XX said, a lot of that property COULD be developed, they would just switch the dotted line. That's why I am worried. Any construction on any part of this land will destroy the balance in the marsh, and the area would be totally destroyed.

[deerhunter_matt]

From the Chagrin Valley Times:

State may be all wet on Auburn Marsh
By SUE REID

Auburn Trustee John Eberly said Monday that a property in the township has been identified on a top-10 list created by Treasurer of State Richard Cordray as a parcel that could be sold to generate revenue.

The property identified is the state wildlife marsh on Auburn Road, Mr. Eberly said, which is run by the Ohio Division of Natural Resources Division of Wildlife. "They're not too good at understanding what marsh means," he said. "That property is underwater eight months a year."

Mr. Eberly said he contacted Chagrin River Watershed Partners Executive Director Kyle Dreyfuss-Wells to assist in relaying the message to the state that the property is necessary in the township, primarily for its water recharge. "We need to get together and put a stop to this," he said.

Ms. Dreyfuss-Wells said Tuesday that the partners organization has contacted the Geauga Soil and Water District, Geauga Park District and the Geauga County planning commission.

"Everyone agrees that this is a piece of land that should stay in its current status," she said. "We're working at the direction of the trustees to try to get it off the list."

Ms. Dreyfuss-Wells said it's her assumption that, when Mr. Cordray created the list, he did not have the time to look at the properties. "It's our job to bring this to his attention," she said. "We need to make the development constraints of this parcel and the natural-resource value of it clear to the state."

Ms. Dreyfuss-Wells said that the marsh is protected. "It's quite wet and currently holding water. If it's developed, that water will have to go somewhere," she said.

"All of us who are working in the field to get better development or get land into conservation don't want to go backwards. We're trying to go forward, so this does not help," she said of the possible sale of the property.

Mr. Eberly said the township's newly adopted amendment to its zoning, in which a passive open-space district was developed, applies to the marsh.

"It's a great big supporter of our aquifers here," Trustee Patrick J. Cavanagh said of the marsh. "It's a collection point, because it is low."

Trustees said they will draw up an official letter Mr. Cordray stating their opposition.

[XX78]

Thanks for posting that matt.

[deerhunter_matt]

No problem, saw it the other day and looked it up today. It's nice to know that at least some of the politicians know what's right...

[XX78]

Im honestly more worried about the eastern side of the property.

[XX78]

Thanks to bandanaman

http://www.ohiooutdoornews.com/articles/2007/02/15/news/news3.txt

[bowhunter1023]

Its suprising to see that a Democrat wants to promote business...I figured he would just want to give it away :mischeif: He's gonna piss off his own kind to...$5 says there are hippies chaining themselves to trees if he sells that land for development. Hopefully for the sake of the people who use it, the public input is enough to stop it from happening.

[deerhunter_matt]

From what it sounds like, this guy just didn't do his homework. The original parcel his team set aside was on the southwest portion of the Auburn Marsh. It is all swamp. Unfortunately, once he realizes his error, he will realize that there IS plenty of developable land on this property. This area was selected becuase it would help to run a continuous development that is already to the south of the area.

Spinning wheels right now, but something that needs to be watched with a close eye.

[XX78]

Its suprising to see that a Democrat wants to promote business....



He just wants credit for helping to balance the state's budget as quickly as possible.