Is the sixth time the charm for amending the state Constitution to allow the state to revive its program of trust land exchanges, limited to exchanges for other public land?

Supporters of Prop. 100, the sixth ballot proposition seeking to allow trust land exchanges since they were ruled illegal in 1990, hope so, while opponents accuse the supporters of trying to wear voters down.

“They’re hoping for voter fatigue,” Sen. Bill Brotherton, D-14, said of the repeated attempts to pass similar measures. “I don’t really feel that’s appropriate.”

Sen. Robert Blendu, R-12, sponsored the 2003 resolution that placed the Prop.100 on this year’s ballot. He said it is virtually identical to the one that failed by two percentage points 2002, though this time the focus is on preserving military bases.

“There is nothing new in this ballot proposition,” he said. “I just think it’s a different look this time around.”

Mr. Brotherton said part of his objection to the proposition is its association with military base preservation, which he says is only one aspect of the proposal.

“The title of this proposition is misleading, and intentionally so,” he said, “because it talks about military base preservation, yet the reality is this amendment [to the state Constitution] would go much, much broader than that.”

Voters also rejected similar propositions in 1990, 1992, 1994 and 2000. Mr. Blendu said a lack of voter understanding of a complex subject played a central role in the defeat of previous propositions.

“This is a very complicated issue and there is no way you can explain land swaps in some little flier,” he said.

Detractors say the previous proposals were defeated because the public realizes land exchanges are bad business for the state. Sandy Bahr, lobbyist for the Grand Canyon chapter of the Sierra Club, said trust land exchanges are not performed in the public interest.

“The main reason we object,” Ms. Bahr said, “is that the public pretty much gets ripped off. The public usually gets the short end of the stick.”

In 1936, Congress amended the Enabling Act, which already allowed the state to sell and lease its trust lands, to permit extended leases and the exchange of School Trust lands.

On Sept. 16, 1985, the Fain Land and Cattle Company applied to exchange private land it owned for School Trust land. On March 24, 1988, the state land commissioner and the State Selection Board approved the exchange as it had previously done for other applications, in accordance with state law. Five months later, on Aug. 8, 1988, the Land Department informed Fain that it was halting the exchange based on advice from the attorney general that the court’s decision in another case, Deer Valley Unified School Dist. v. Superior Court (1988), prohibited such exchanges.

Fain asked the court to rule that the Arizona Constitution does not prohibit the exchange of School Trust lands without auction, but on March 30, 1990, the state Supreme Court held that no constitutional authority exists for the Legislature to authorize those exchanges. It said its ruling would apply only prospectively, but that for future land exchanges to be legal, the state Constitution would have to be amended.

State Trust Lands And National Monument Land

Mr. Blendu said trust land exchanges have become increasingly necessary since the mid-1990s, when President Clinton created national monuments in Arizona by executive order. Mr. Blendu said that left islands of state trust land surrounded by national monument land.

“We will never get our value out of that land,” Mr. Blendu said, since it can’t be developed.

The solution, he said, is to trade the “trapped” land to the federal government in exchange for equally valued federal lands outside national monuments that could be sold to developers in the future.

Ms. Bahr said the trust land exchanges could be used to broker “sweetheart deals” with developers that would not give the state fair value for the exchanged land.

In response to the Sierra Club’s objection, Mr. Blendu said, “That’s complete nonsense. [The Sierra Club] just made that up.”

Blendu: Exhanges Done In Public View

Such a situation couldn’t occur, he said, because the State Land Department has a constitutional requirement “to act in the best interest of the land trust.” Plus, he said, Prop. 100 requires land exchanges to go through an extensive public process, including public meetings at the Capitol and in the vicinity of the land that would be exchanged.

The public involvement process also includes at least two independent appraisals that must show that the true value of any lands received in the exchange must equal or exceed the true value of the land the state exchanges.

“This is not about getting ‘sweetheart deals’ to developers,” Mr. Blendu said.

Instead, he said, this proposition is about stopping encroachment near military bases and preserving open space in rapidly growing areas, especially in his district, which includes Luke Air Force Base in Glendale and parts of Buckeye. If the proposition is approved, the state could also swap trust land with municipalities and counties, allowing the state to acquire parcels of land within city limits for the purposes of conservation, Mr. Blendu said.

“Open space has an intrinsic value attached to it that we’re just now starting to realize,” he said.

Ms. Bahr said the state would only contribute to urban sprawl by swapping outlying land for land currently within a municipal boundary. She also said the state has no intention of obtaining any land for conservation purposes.

“No matter what, the lands the state Land Department are likely to get will be put up for more development,” she said. “This land will be used for development, there’s no doubt about it.”

O’Halleran Wants More Safeguards

Rep. Tom O’Halleran, R-1, said he supports trust land exchanges in order to manage state land but doesn’t think Prop.100 has adequate safeguards to ensure land intended for conservation will remain such.

Mr. O’Halleran said the proposed amendment would not prevent transferring land the state receives in an exchange to a third party who then could develop it. Though the public is notified of the initial land exchange, he said nearby residents are not notified if the state decides to do something with the land in the future.

“If it’s for conservation, then why consider development?” he asked. “If we’re trading for conservation, then let’s trade for conservation.”

Mr. O’Halleran said a third-party developer could have an agreement with the state that the land would be sold after it is exchanged without the state informing the public of its ultimate intentions.

“The public should know what’s happening with public lands,” he said. “Let people know about it right up front. Don’t be hiding behind the closed doors of government to do it.”

9.2 Million Acres Remain

In total, Congress granted Arizona approximately 10.9 million acres of state trust land. Today, trust land is apportioned among 14 beneficiaries, though public schools are the largest beneficiary. Of the more than 9.2 million acres remaining in the trust – most of which is leased for natural resource uses and commercial development purposes – about 87 per cent is in the Common Schools Trust for public schools and about 90 per cent of the trust land revenues go to the Common Schools Trust.

For Sen. Bob Cannell, D-24, the fact that $9 of every $10 of revenue benefits public schools is proof enough that the
state needs to be able to do what is needed to get trust land into private hands and onto tax rolls.

“Anything that can help the trust and increase education funding, I’m in favor of,” he said. “The real thing is to allow us to acquire land that might be more valuable to develop and sell.”

Mr. Cannell said the court’s ruling that land exchanges are unconstitutional have protected the trust land up to this point, but much of the land in and around Maricopa County has become extremely valuable, and its sale or development would be a boon to the public education system.

“Because we’re hampered by the Constitution and the Enabling Act, we can’t get the best value for the land and [sell] it fast enough,” he said.

However, Ms. Bahr contends that the state’s inability to procure accurate appraisals demonstrates the possibility the state will trade for land that is actually less valuable than what it previously owned. She cited as an example a 41-acre parcel of trust land in north Phoenix that was appraised at $17.2 million and auctioned by the state in May for $32 million. She said that if the state had exchanged the land for another parcel appraised at $17.2 million, the state would have lost out on nearly $15 million. When that happens, she said, the public schools lose out on a lot of money.

“The bottom line is that the government just isn’t very good at these land deals,” she said. —