MTNTOUGH - Use promo code RANDY for 30 days free

Arkansas public land issue

"The sale would have to be approved by congress as it used to be federal land that was deeded to the university."

The article didnt really make it clear how this sale is supposed to work. Rep Crawford made it sound like the state was prepared to pay more than the private party but that UofA was wanting to sell it to the private individuals anyway?? Also is he talking about the US or state legislature needing to approve it?
 
There's a lot of conflicting information going around and we (BHA) are trying to gather the true facts but it's been slow going so far. Until then we are putting the word out on what we do know, compiling signatures and working with all of our state legislators. We're in communication with AGFC, U of A, the Nature Conservancy, Rep Crawford and all of the other outdoor, fishing and hunting NGOs in the state.
 
We've got over 1100 signatures so far. Thanks! Here's a current blog post about the situation. On a side note, the University just bragged about exceeding their latest fundraising goal by raising 1.4 billion. I don't think they desperately need to sell this land to raise money. They can certainly afford to find a way to keep it public. AGFC is managing it anyway so it's not costing them...

www.backcountryhunters.org

Pine Tree Research Station Sale — Attacking Arkansas Hunters & Our Hunting Culture

University of Arkansas Sells Public Land, Pine Tree Research Station
www.backcountryhunters.org www.backcountryhunters.org
 
Hope a solution can be found. When there is so little public land, each acre is even more important.

Another unfortunate example of state agencies having a tendency to sell assets as the easy path. It is this kind of activity that causes so many to oppose the idea of transferring Federal lands to State Land Boards given those State Land Boards manage lands for a small handful of beneficiaries, mostly the state schools systems.
 
Signed in a heartbeat.

This reminds me of my alma mater, the University of Wyoming. They were gifted an amazing piece of property, The Y Cross Ranch, for the purpose of Ag Education. Long story short, they sold it against the donors wishes (and if I remember correctly for an undisclosed dollar figure). Rumor has it the Foundation Board members who arranged the sale made off like bandits in personal bonuses on the sale. Most of the faculty I talked with when this was occurring had no idea that the University even had the property, and as far as I know it was never used for its intended purpose whatsoever. The donor even tried to sue to stop the sale, but she failed as UW and CSU were allowed to sell the property after 15 years. It's huge regret of mine that I didn't raise a lot more hell than what I did on that deal, so kudos to you guys for being on top of this. Sorry, I don't mean to derail your thread with all that info, but hearing about your predicament really hit a nerve for me.
 
ARKANSASHUNTER said:
We've got over 1100 signatures so far. Thanks! Here's a current blog post about the situation. On a side note, the University just bragged about exceeding their latest fundraising goal by raising 1.4 billion. I don't think they desperately need to sell this land to raise money. They can certainly afford to find a way to keep it public. AGFC is managing it anyway so it's not costing them...

www.backcountryhunters.org

Pine Tree Research Station Sale — Attacking Arkansas Hunters & Our Hunting Culture

University of Arkansas Sells Public Land, Pine Tree Research Station
www.backcountryhunters.org www.backcountryhunters.org
Click to expand...


I'm still a little confused on the sale. Does it require congressional approval or not? Has it already been approved?

But I agree it's a good example of what state ownership of public land can look like (secret sale of popular public spots when state entity decides they want/need some cash).
 
It does require congressional approval. The sale is under contract awaiting that approval.
Unless the University alters it's course I suspect an injunction will be filed to halt the sale until a buyer/option can be found to keep public access in perpetuity.
 
What this sounds like is that the USG conveyed the property to U of A to be used for certain purposes, agriculture research is what it seems like, but the USG retained a reversionay interest in the property. Normally, the deed reads something like, “to the University of Arkansas to have and hold for the purposes of conducting agricultural research. In the event that the U of A ceases to conduct agricultural research on the property, ownership of the property would revert to the Department of X.” It would revert to whatever agency originally conveyed the land. Interior. Agriculture. Defense. Doesn’t matter who, it’s the USG. What U of A is looking for is for Congress to remove that reversionary clause so they hold title to the property free and clear which means they can sell it to who ever for any purpose. Free and clear title obviously enhances the value of the property and allows U of A to sell it to the highest bidder.

The ultimate question you need answered is does Congress have to do something to allow for the sale of this land or can an executive branch agency like agriculture or interior authorize it without Congressional approval. I know what the news articles say but that doesn't mean they know what they are talking about. If Congress does have to act to allow the sale, what you guys need to know is what agency conveyed the land. Does that agency support the sale of the land? Once you know that, ask what Congressional Committee has oversight of that agency. Once you know that, look and see if Congressman Crawford, Senator Boozman or Senator Cotton sit on that committee. If it is Agriculture, Boozman is next in line to chair Senate Agriculture and he will have a big say in whether Congress removes any such restrictions. Crawford sits on House Agriculture too. It may be US Fish and Wildlife which falls under the Dept of Interior. I don't think any AR reps sit on the oversight committees that oversee DOI but the AR reps would have to support any such legislation to remove the reversionary clause. A quick glance at congress.gov shows there is no stand alone legislation addressing this issue. Therefore, removing the USG's reversionary interest would have to be rider in a larger bill that is going to move at some point. Cotton is up for re-election so he's going to be sensitive to an issue that pisses off a bunch of AR voters. Crawford is too. Call their offices and ask to speak to the staffer who handles public land issues. Boozman's office is always incredibly nice, call them too. You need to understand what the process is for removing restrictions on the deed and who controls that and whether they are already considering doing so. If the U of A is requesting this and the agency who conveyed the land supports it, you've got a real uphill battle on your hands. This Congress only lasts a few more months so it may be a matter that waits until next Congress. You've got to figure all this out if you want to stop it.

I'll poke around a bit and see what I can find out.
 
Alright, so here is the skinny on this deal: The U of A has not done a good job with this deal and managing the PR side of it. It has gotten out of hand and Congressman Crawford has come out publicly and said he does not support the deal. The whole reason U of A wants to sell the property is that they want to build a new rice research facility in Jonesboro, AR. The federal government has given them half the money to build the facility but they have to come up with the remaining half (matching funds). The Governor has refused to give them the money. Therefore, U of A took a look at things they could sell and decided to try and sell the Pine Tree Station. They did not anticipate it causing this kind of shitstorm.

Congress does have to approve the sale. However, with Congressman Crawford opposed, that becomes very difficult because the committee of jurisdiction who would authorize such a sale falls to the Agriculture Committees. Congressman Crawford and Senator Boozman both sit on that committee in their respective chambers. It remains unclear whether USDA was consulted about such a sale and whether they support such an action. My experience is that government agencies are either opposed or agnostic. They rarely support the sale of public lands, especially to a private entity, because they don't want to encourage other proposals. Regardless of whether USDA supports or not, Congress can do whatever it wants. Apparently, Senator Cotton supports the sale and Senator Boozman has not voiced an opinion yet but is unlikely to support if the community does not support.

It is unlikely that any action gets taken on this issue this Congress because there isn't a legislative vehicle for the issue to ride on. A/k/a no agriculture bills moving. If Crawford continues to oppose and Boozman comes out against, U of A or Lobo Farms is likely to cancel the sale. That, or U of A comes up with the money another way. I'd have to believe they are examining alternatives at this point.
 
badkarma6 said:
Alright, so here is the skinny on this deal: The U of A has not done a good job with this deal and managing the PR side of it. It has gotten out of hand and Congressman Crawford has come out publicly and said he does not support the deal. The whole reason U of A wants to sell the property is that they want to build a new rice research facility in Jonesboro, AR. The federal government has given them half the money to build the facility but they have to come up with the remaining half (matching funds). The Governor has refused to give them the money. Therefore, U of A took a look at things they could sell and decided to try and sell the Pine Tree Station. They did not anticipate it causing this kind of shitstorm.

Congress does have to approve the sale. However, with Congressman Crawford opposed, that becomes very difficult because the committee of jurisdiction who would authorize such a sale falls to the Agriculture Committees. Congressman Crawford and Senator Boozman both sit on that committee in their respective chambers. It remains unclear whether USDA was consulted about such a sale and whether they support such an action. My experience is that government agencies are either opposed or agnostic. They rarely support the sale of public lands, especially to a private entity, because they don't want to encourage other proposals. Regardless of whether USDA supports or not, Congress can do whatever it wants. Apparently, Senator Cotton supports the sale and Senator Boozman has not voiced an opinion yet but is unlikely to support if the community does not support.

It is unlikely that any action gets taken on this issue this Congress because there isn't a legislative vehicle for the issue to ride on. A/k/a no agriculture bills moving. If Crawford continues to oppose and Boozman comes out against, U of A or Lobo Farms is likely to cancel the sale. That, or U of A comes up with the money another way. I'd have to believe they are examining alternatives at this point.
Click to expand...

Great job! I will contact the senators' offices and voice my opinion. Our legislators are generally in favor of publicly accessible land for outdoor recreation and often looking for an easy win. There are valuable properties around the state that UA owns and aren't frequently used by the public. They should start with those lands if they need the $$.
 
The land was deeded from the USFS. Our local BHA chapter has been working non stop on this. My understanding is that Boozeman is aligned with Crawford to propose a bill in January that would purchase the property with state funds and then turn it over to Game and fish. If necessary to stop the sale before January, a legal injunction will be filed.
 
ARKANSASHUNTER said:
The land was deeded from the USFS. Our local BHA chapter has been working non stop on this. My understanding is that Boozeman is aligned with Crawford to propose a bill in January that would purchase the property with state funds and then turn it over to Game and fish. If necessary to stop the sale before January, a legal injunction will be filed.
Click to expand...

So Crawford and Boozman have no say over state funds. If the Governor and the Legislature want to appropriate funds to buy the property, they would still need Congress to authorize the sale. The bottom line is that if Congress does not support the sale, it won't happen. You can file a lawsuit seeking an injunction but I don't see how you would have standing. You haven't actually suffered any harm. Seems like a waste of time especially if your Senator and Congressman are already saying they won't support the sale.
 
It's actually state senator Caldwell that wants to propose the legislation to purchase the land and file the injunction to delay the sale if needed. It looks now like the sale will not have congressional support and the fbi is investigating the sale so I don't think the injunction will be needed. Public awareness and concerns from some neighboring farmers about flooding issues got Boozeman's attention and he has come out saying that it won't happen. Congress would only need to approve the sale if the land went private according to the deed.
 
ARKANSASHUNTER said:
It's actually state senator Caldwell that wants to propose the legislation to purchase the land and file the injunction to delay the sale if needed. It looks now like the sale will not have congressional support and the fbi is investigating the sale so I don't think the injunction will be needed. Public awareness and concerns from some neighboring farmers about flooding issues got Boozeman's attention and he has come out saying that it won't happen. Congress would only need to approve the sale if the land went private according to the deed.
Click to expand...
You guys did a good job.
 
Thanks bakarma6. We have been working really hard. The media has picked it up now and it's starting to "make it's own gravy" so to speak. I think the story will have a happy ending.
www.nwaonline.com

UA land sale questioned by critics | Northwest Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

A central question raised by critics of the planned sale of a portion of a state agriculture research station is: Can the land even legally be sold?
www.nwaonline.com www.nwaonline.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

COEngineer
CO Senate UNANIMOUSLY supports public lands
Replies
3
Views
307
elkduds
elkduds
COEngineer
BHA Action Alert For USFS Terminations
Replies
7
Views
678
Hydrophilic
Hydrophilic
44hunter45
SCOTUS Rejects UTAH land grab suit.
Replies
14
Views
937
EzAnslinger
EzAnslinger
Foxtrot1
Public Lands Rule Rescinded
Replies
6
Views
663
rogerthat
rogerthat
elkduds
TRCP has new Public Land Access website, emphasizing risk of public land transfer.
Replies
1
Views
334
Elktrack
Elktrack

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
115,544
Messages
2,100,965
Members
37,177
Latest member
Mattwill14

Share this page

Back
Top