From: | Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org> |
Date: | 15 May 2001 17:27:17 -0000 |
Reply: | cpeo-military |
Subject: | [CPEO-MEF] Arizona anti-encroachment law |
The following is re-posted from the Military Discussion List of the International City/County Management Association: *** ARIZONA ACTS TO CURB GROWTH AND STOP ENCROACHMENT AROUND LUKE AIR FORCE BASE This post is a synopsis of a series of articles from the newspaper Arizona Republic. The conclusions drawn are not necessarily those of ICMA or the Military Communities Consortium. ----------------------------- Luke AFB has been an economic driver for Glendale and the greater Phoenix area. Whether or not Luke is a possible victim of a potential future BRAC round (as alluded to in the article, but very debatable), it has many issues related to encroachment and urban sprawl. In early April, Governor Jane Hull signed a bill that requires enhanced reporting requirements for developers, municipalities and school districts so nearby military air facilities could comment on issues of compatibility. The law, which aims to protect Luke AFB from encroachment, will take effect July 1, 2001. The law in essence has defined what is appropriate or compatible land usage around Luke and actively seeks to restrict development. Using "noise contours and potential accident zones" the state would deny resources to facilities that would have non-compatible activities, such as schools. The noise contour zone measures the decibel level of the F-16s that fly in and out of Luke and is the area in which residential development is considered encroachment by the facility. The law has caused plans for the construction of two elementary schools and three proposed renovations to be scrapped. The next step is to determine what to do about the encroachment that has already occurred and how to resolve disputes with potential developers or property right holders of the land adjacent to the facility. The state originally sought a $15 million dollar "agricultural preserve district" to act as a buffer to the airfield or as an alternative, $7.5 million to protect the area from continued encroachment by retiring the development rights permanently. These ideas were spurred on by supporters of the facility who fear that encroachment could be used against the facility if a base closure committee is formed. Last week, the state approved a $3 million measure to temporarily block development of the farmland around Luke. An agricultural preservation district seeks to lease property development rights from the landowners around Luke for two years so that farmers can continue farming the land instead of selling it to developers. The law authorizes $2 million for long-term support of the agricultural preservation district, while $1 million will be used to develop land-use plans. (Davenport, May 7, 2001.) The law leaves open the option of leasing or acquiring development rights, and it specifies a period of 25 years with a review of the terms of the leases or acquisitions every five years. But the main problem for Luke is that it is experiencing extreme pressures from the residential community. Landowners around Luke are unhappy that the state will not put up money to lease all of their property rights and last month threatened the "biggest land lawsuit in state history." With the agriculture preservation district/land-use block only getting $3 million of the proposed $15 million, land owners may feel that they will suffer unfairly, by having their land usages restricted with no reimbursement from the state. Thus, the state will have to continue to work with the landowners to ensure the property values stay at a reasonable rate. Key Provisions of the laws: * Cities near military bases must include consideration of base operations in their general plans. * Cities must hold public hearings when considering planning and zoning changes that would affect military bases. * Property owners next to bases must notify potential buyers or renters about compliance regulations. Background: Luke Air Force Base is the largest F-16 training base with more than 200 F-16 Fighting Falcon jets assigned to it. More than 1,000 pilots graduate from there annually. It generates an estimated $2 billion a year for the state economy and the cities of Glendale and Phoenix. Sean Tolliver, ICMA <stolliver@icma.org> Articles cited: Ricardo Pimentel, "Luke AFB shouldn't be a special case," Arizona Republic March 27, 2001: David Madrid, "Bills viewed as critical to Luke; Base defenders fear inaction to bring closure," Arizona Republic March 11, 2001 B6: Lori Baker "Luke law scraps schools; noise-zone construction prohibited," Arizona Republic April 4, 2001, se. A. p.1: Lori Baker and David Madrid, "Schools may relocate amid jet crash fears," Arizona Republic May 1, 2001: David Madrid, "Luke Preservation faces possible veto," Arizona Republic May 3, 2001 p. B4: Paul Davenport, "Hull signs spending bills for rural programs," Associated Press May 7, 2001: David Madrid, "Luke Preservation Faces Possible Veto; Hull Opposes Development Leases for Lands," Arizona Republic May 3, 2001, sec. B, p. 4: David Madrid, "Lawsuits over Luke," Arizona Republic April 11, 2001, p. 1 and "Air Bases are on State's Radar," March 22, 2001 p. 4. -- Lenny Siegel Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight c/o PSC, 222B View St., Mountain View, CA 94041 Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545 Fax: 650/968-1126 lsiegel@cpeo.org http://www.cpeo.org ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ | |
Prev by Date: [CPEO-MEF] The National Technical Experts Network (NTEN) Next by Date: Re: [CPEO-MEF] JEFFCO WELLS TESTED FOR REFINED URANIUM | |
Prev by Thread: [CPEO-MEF] The National Technical Experts Network (NTEN) Next by Thread: [CPEO-MEF] Arizona Encroachment |