11/21/2006

Editorial

Leelanau board can't justify scrapping program

Leelanau County Commissioners who appear ready to totally scrap the county's farmland preservation program tonight should decide instead to take a time out and give the whole idea a little time to percolate.

Last week the board — with essentially zero debate and zero public input — voted 5-2 to dismantle the program. The item was put on the agenda and put to a vote on the same day, and now board members appear ready to finish it off tonight. That's no way to run a democratic process.

Yes, commissioners can argue that voters had their say when they thrashed a proposed 15-year, 0.5-mill levy to support the preservation initiative in the November election.

But it would be dishonest to claim voters who didn't want to pay the tax (about 62 percent of those voting) also wanted to dismantle the entire program. That wasn't the question they were asked, and to take the next step without giving everyone a say, or without considering alternatives, would be an abuse of power.

Supporters of the preservation program have already asked for time to find alternate funding; the program costs the county about $13,500 a year. If they can, what would be the point in dismantling the entire operation beyond making political hay? None.

Yes, 7,265 voters said they didn't want the millage; but 4,426 of them said they did; shouldn't they be given some kind of say on the follow-up question?

Voters this year said "no” to this millage. That's fine. But what about four years from now, after more and more farmland has been turned into subdivisions or condos? What if the farmland preservation office can find grant money to pay for itself or even take some key pieces of farmland off the development market? What's the rush?

If proponents can't find funding and it becomes apparent residents want to scrap the program along with the millage, then so be it. Give supporters a deadline and a chance; if they can't make it happen, ending the program is justified. But don't pretend the people have already spoken. That's not the case.

Preservation programs are controversial. They are criticized for aiding wealthy landowners or for preserving land that isn't worth preserving at that cost. But as time goes on, and development pressures increase, residents may want such a program as an option.

This is about planning for the future. Isn't that part of the county's job description?

Respect voters' right to have their say. Give it a rest for now.