Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 31

Thread: Conservation Bank

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Florence
    Posts
    9,025

    Default Conservation Bank

    South Carolina legislators might have compromise to save the Conservation Bank
    By Bo Petersen and Seanna Adcox bopete@postandcourier.com sadcox@postandcourier.com Feb 9, 2018


    The embattled State Conservation Bank might just be saved by a S.C. House compromise giving it less money and more responsibilities.

    The bill passed the Ways and Means committee on Wednesday and will be on the calendar for a full House vote next week.

    The bank uses public money to fund land-easement protections for landmark sites such as the iconic Angel Oak on Johns Island.


    The legislation takes away the bank’s dedicated stream of money from a tax on property transfers. But it establishes an agency to run the bank, similar to other state agencies, that must request funds through the state budget.

    The bill also eliminates the “death clause” that would dissolve the bank if its funding dropped to zero. It also removes the bank’s sunset clause so it wouldn't have to be reauthorized periodically by the Legislature.

    "I'm very happy with (the bill)," said Sen. Chip Campsen, R-Isle of Palms, the bank’s main legislative advocate since its inception. He's optimistic it will pass the House, he said.

    The Senate might tweak the bill but will work with House members on that, he said.
    Sponsored

    For Wine Lovers, this Retail Tent is a Must in the Culinary Village
    With more than 4,000 bottles of wine, Bottles Beverage Superstore in Mount Pleasant boasts the greatest wine selection in town. A sampling of some of store’s best varieties will be available at the Bottles Wine Retail Shop at this year’s Charleston Wine + Food Festival.

    "I'm very pleased we're working together and not in opposition on it," Campsen added.

    The Charleston-based Coastal Conservation League supports the compromise bill, said Emily Cedzo, the league's land, water and wildlife program director. The league had been a major proponent of the bank.

    Committee member Rep. Phillip Lowe, R-Florence, said legislators intend to budget the bank between $10 million and $11 million for the next fiscal year.

    That would slash its current $13 million funding. The funding level already has been reduced by the Legislature from $22 million at its height.

    The Legislature may eventually again fund the bank through deed stamps, but the bank basically has to earn that, Lowe said, by proving to legislators it is spending the money wisely and has fixed problems laid out in the Legislative Audit Council.

    The bank has been opposed by some legislators because a share of property transfer fees funds it. Some lawmakers also have objected to the bank's work because some public payments go toward properties the general public can't access.

    Another requirement in the compromise bill would require it to use some funds to improve conserved land for public access.

    The bank was created in 2004 in the wake of "takings" controversies over the acquisition of public lands. Using a public-private approach that includes paying for conservation easements on private land, the bank has protected more than 300,000 acres since its start.

    But it was rocked by the legislative budget cuts and was on the verge of the "death clause" taking effect during 2017 deliberations on reauthorizing it because of a controversy over a delayed transfer of $3 million from the bank to the S.C. Department of Natural Resources.

    The delay led to a legislative audit and a later audit ordered by Gov. Henry McMaster. The probes found no fraud or misuse of funds, but did find a number of basic accounting deficiencies that included poor money management. As the probes were underway, new bank officers were appointed and they are now revamping its practices.

    Along with Angel Oak, the conserved acres include historic Morris Island at the edge of Charleston Harbor, as well as land in the vast ACE Basin south of Charleston and on the Blue Ridge Escarpment in the mountains at the North Carolina line.
    Either write things worth reading, or do things worth writing.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Green Pond SC
    Posts
    1,441

    Default

    Hope you get it passed.. still a need for this, and landowners in certain watersheds are helping public by it NOT being developed or accessed
    Last edited by Palmetto Pride; 02-11-2018 at 10:54 AM.
    “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance” - Thomas Jefferson

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    47,889

    Default

    interesting, to say the least.
    Ugh. Stupid people piss me off.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Florence
    Posts
    9,025

    Default

    Another requirement in the compromise bill would require it to use some funds to improve conserved land for public access.

    This cannot be overemphasized. The bank was forbidden to spend any money on improvements. DNR, Forestry and Parks Rec and Tourism were the recipients of the fee simple purchases but they did not get any additional monies to improve the properties for public access.

    If my amendment holds the bank can find matching monies to go along with the state funds and we can make drastic improvements in our state owned properties. This is a real shift in policy that will make a difference.
    Either write things worth reading, or do things worth writing.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    47,889

    Default

    well, that's the dumbest part. its the "feel good" part for "those less fortunate" so all the "rich people" (who can afford the land) can "throw a bone" so the leftist taxpayer will have less to bitch about. and I dont really see how the conservation bank is going to help you on state owned lands...but I'm sure you will explain it to me. I didnt think this bank was to donate properties to the state. I thought it was to get easements so the land will not become a strip mall or golf course.



    the "public access" part is a HUGE turn off to many wanting to protect their land.
    Ugh. Stupid people piss me off.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Florence
    Posts
    9,025

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2thDoc View Post
    well, that's the dumbest part. its the "feel good" part for "those less fortunate" so all the "rich people" (who can afford the land) can "throw a bone" so the leftist taxpayer will have less to bitch about. and I dont really see how the conservation bank is going to help you on state owned lands...but I'm sure you will explain it to me. I didnt think this bank was to donate properties to the state. I thought it was to get easements so the land will not become a strip mall or golf course.
    the "public access" part is a HUGE turn off to many wanting to protect their land.

    For the past 10 years the conservation bank has spent an equal proportion of the funds on conservation easements and fee simple purchases.

    100% of the fee simple purchases become part of the DNR, Forestry or Park lands. Most are with DNR and all have full public access. All of these properties needed improvements so the public could enjoy but no money came with the properties. With my amendment the Bank can help fund the improvements so we can enjoy.

    The Conservation easements were under attack by conservatives. They felt Joe Sixpack was not benefitting from the easement that preserved land that was not really under high risk of development. The new bill gives higher points to easements that allow some access. Examples: Youth duck hunt. Boy Scout Cookout. Educational opportunities.
    Either write things worth reading, or do things worth writing.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    47,889

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Duck Tape View Post
    For the past 10 years the conservation bank has spent an equal proportion of the funds on conservation easements and fee simple purchases.

    100% of the fee simple purchases become part of the DNR, Forestry or Park lands. Most are with DNR and all have full public access. All of these properties needed improvements so the public could enjoy but no money came with the properties. With my amendment the Bank can help fund the improvements so we can enjoy.

    The Conservation easements were under attack by conservatives. They felt Joe Sixpack was not benefitting from the easement that preserved land that was not really under high risk of development. The new bill gives higher points to easements that allow some access. Examples: Youth duck hunt. Boy Scout Cookout. Educational opportunities.
    so....i dont think I'm following you bc of some terminology.

    The conservation bank is used on state lands? OK. Fine with me. Its a silly, political way to use money for the greater good so everyone gets a piece of the pie. Without this (GASP) you wouldnt get re-elected.

    But dont tell a private landowner they can get an easement "if they open up their land for public use." Its killing those that want to apply. That, plus the fact that everyone else already raided the bank for all the money bc it was given out in silly quantities well above the "value" of the land. I guess "you snooze, you lose" applies here....but trust me the "public use" part of the bank is not gonna work in the real world.

    and that's the truth from the street if you care.
    Ugh. Stupid people piss me off.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Florence
    Posts
    9,025

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2thDoc View Post
    so....i dont think I'm following you bc of some terminology.

    The conservation bank is used on state lands? OK. Fine with me. Its a silly, political way to use money for the greater good so everyone gets a piece of the pie. Without this (GASP) you wouldnt get re-elected.

    But dont tell a private landowner they can get an easement "if they open up their land for public use." Its killing those that want to apply. That, plus the fact that everyone else already raided the bank for all the money bc it was given out in silly quantities well above the "value" of the land. I guess "you snooze, you lose" applies here....but trust me the "public use" part of the bank is not gonna work in the real world.

    and that's the truth from the street if you care.
    50% of the Conservation Bank dollars are spent on purchases of land that will be owned by the state forever. They will have varying kind of access depending on the agency holding the land. Much of the land will have WMA status. Money is needed to create dikes, make roads, and create habitat improvements for hunting and fishing. Does that sound like I am trying to please liberals? They did not want any project money.

    It is not silly when state dollars can be matched with NAWCA and Pitman/Robertson dollars to improve properties. That is not silly. It stretches the dollar and brings in more federal money to SC for our enjoyment.

    I understand some people will not conserve their land because they do not want any public access granted no matter how small. Tough. The taxpayer deserves some benefit other than the thought that 10 wealthy guys got a huge tax break to "conserve" their hunting club. It still will not be impossible without the public access but there will have to something more unique about the property with a real time risk of development.

    I doubt the liberal left was planning to vote for me anyway. Looks like I lost you also.
    Either write things worth reading, or do things worth writing.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Low Country
    Posts
    237

    Default

    So if I'm a private landowner and I allow "public access" by allowing the cub scouts or any other group use of my property for a cookout etc. That meets the definition of public access? A youth hunt one day a year would meet the "public use" criteria?

    It's the other "50%" of land that the state does not own and is giving taxpayer funds that concerns me. All a landowner would have to do is allow "limited access" and tax money could be used to build dikes, roads, duck ponds etc? Damn! That's a great deal!

    To be honest, anything that involves public money and the SC Legislature, legislative appointed boards or anything else involving the legislature I would be very skeptical of. What could go wrong?

    The folks wealthy enough to own this property probably don't need any help in "preserving" their land for generations to come. They have the means to protect it. But then again if y'all are handing it out they might as well take it. It's the SC way! Pissing away other people's money!

    Here's an idea! Fix the schools and roads and retirement system and the nuclear fiasco y'all created. Let's leave the dikes and ponds to the people who will use them 99% of the time.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    9,267

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2thDoc View Post
    well, that's the dumbest part. its the "feel good" part for "those less fortunate" so all the "rich people" (who can afford the land) can "throw a bone" so the leftist taxpayer will have less to bitch about. and I dont really see how the conservation bank is going to help you on state owned lands...but I'm sure you will explain it to me. I didnt think this bank was to donate properties to the state. I thought it was to get easements so the land will not become a strip mall or golf course.



    the "public access" part is a HUGE turn off to many wanting to protect their land.
    Couldn’t you just not sell your land if you didn’t want it to become a shopping mall or a golf course?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Wateree, South Carolina
    Posts
    48,810

    Default

    Correct 2th. Dumb policy will kill a great program.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Florence
    Posts
    9,025

    Default

    Summary of Legislative Audit of the Conservation Bank.

    APPLICATION ISSUES
     The Bank has a subjective and ineffective application process for scoring the required conservation, financial and public access criteria.
     There is no criteria or documented methodology as to how the agency determines the amount to award grant applicants — leading to some grantees receiving as low as 21% of fair market value and others receiving as high as 100% of fair market value.
     The Bank, in some cases, is not requiring proper documentation to determine if the threat of development, claimed in the application, is credible. This has possibly resulted in funding some grants to the exclusion of more deserving grants.
     The application score determined by the Bank is not used to determine whether an applicant receives a grant.
    BUDGET LIMITS
    The Bank is awarding grants without sufficient revenues based upon future expected revenues, thereby exceeding its authorized budget. This could lead to the state being unable to pay for grants awarded by the Bank if funds from the deed stamp fee are reduced due to poor economic conditions.
    PUBLIC ACCESS
     The Bank does not properly weight its scoring of public access — given the importance the General Assembly has placed on public access as evidenced by the statute.
     The Bank is providing grants to hunting clubs, which often have no or very minimal public access and, as a group, allow less public access than other grant classifications.
     The average amount of a grant for a hunting club exceeds the average of all other grants by over $250,000.
     The Bank does not question applicants as to why they cannot allow public access.
    Last edited by Duck Tape; 02-12-2018 at 02:01 PM.
    Either write things worth reading, or do things worth writing.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    47,889

    Default

    if i owned it, I could. When I own 1/20th, its hard to make the rules.

    nice try though.

    I win this round, you big meanie.

    Oh look. A hurricane!
    Ugh. Stupid people piss me off.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Florence
    Posts
    9,025

    Default

    A conservation easement basically gives you a tax credit for agreeing to not develop your land. It does not pay for improving your land.

    There is competition amongst people desiring an easement. More points are awarded if you allow access.



    In the future, if my amendment holds, the land purchased and owned by the state could be improved for the public access.
    Either write things worth reading, or do things worth writing.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Columbia, SC
    Posts
    47,889

    Default

    now, go explain this "huge tax break" you politicians are so proud of. I am pretty good at math....

    and I dont see your numbers on our conservation bank being used (50/50) for state owned acquisitions....and it was started in the early 2000s, right?

    I'll do some research and come back to this. I think its vital to protecting land but I am having a harder and harder time realizing all the benefits that are often touted.
    Ugh. Stupid people piss me off.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Newington GA
    Posts
    4,858

    Default

    We let anyone who needs to turn around have access till the gate. Other than that you may need to call your lawyer.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    9,267

    Default

    Bog I agree with you for once.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Florence
    Posts
    9,025

    Default

    Either write things worth reading, or do things worth writing.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Florence
    Posts
    9,025

    Default

    Either write things worth reading, or do things worth writing.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Florence
    Posts
    9,025

    Default

    Either write things worth reading, or do things worth writing.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •