Add new comment

A resident has correctly pointed out that the proposed conservation fund is not just for capital projects (e.g., land acquisition) as I imply in my original posting.  As it is currently envisioned, the fund could be used to, for example, pay the wages of a part time conservation coordinator or pay for part of a study.

My bias is showing.  My preference for a conservation fund is NOT to build a pot of money to fund any kind of environmental or conservation activity.  Such pots of money have a habit of being spent.  My personal preference is that the fund, if it is created, be "balance sheet neutral".  The idea is that one asset (a dollar in the conservation fund) is exchanged for another asset.  Balance sheet neutrality effectively restricts the fund to large, long-lived capital assets or land (the ultimate asset).

But this is just my personal bias.  Keep in mind that no conservation fund yet exists and we have a long way to go to get one established.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions. Registered users of this site do not have to do this.