Americans and Open Space Conservation

Want to know what someone's "real" interests and priorities are, just look at their calendar. Or, as the old adage goes, look at their checkbook. Another way of saying it is "follow the investment -- whether time or money."

In the most tumultuous of times in American political history the pundits and those running for political office tell us that Americans won't stand for paying another dollar in taxes. But is that really the case?

In the most recent elections -- November 2010; clearly an anti-tax environment -- according to the Trust for Public Lands, those crazy American voters approved an overwhelming 80% of all ballot proposals in support of conservation funding! Twenty-eight of 35 proposals were passes with votes ranging from 59% in Maine for a statewide bond providing for investments in land conservation and the preservation of working waterfronts and state parks to 71% in very conservative South Carolina where votes in Dorchester County approved $5 million in bonds to buy parkland, trails, and wildlife habitat.

Is this an Aberration?
One might consider the votes of 2010 an aberration but such would be a big mistake. In fact, the numbers differed only in that they were higher than a long-term trend whereby open space conservation initiatives typically are passed at the rate of 3 of 4 considered.

What does this Mean?
Without the benefit of rich and expensive studies, perhaps there are a few conclusions that are warranted. While few voters are supportive of sending more tax dollars to Washington and beyond, they seem to be very concerned about what is going on right in their backyards. In short, people are very concerned AND willing to pay for the quality of life close to home.

It is encouraging to see that a growing number of Americas also are coming to an understanding that conservation doesn't just mean "buy and set it aside." Rather, many of these self-assessed funding initiatives are designed to promote conservation of working farms, forests, and ranches. Perhaps there really is a way to "have your cake and eat it too" by 1) keeping lands on the tax rolls and providing jobs and commodities to meet consumer needs; 2) while also ensuring that those lands will retain their important ecological and broader societal benefits such as open space, wildlife habitat, and clean air and water -- what some call the "natural infrastructure" or environmental "services" that lands provide.

It may be too that many are beginning to look at the future through the eyes of their grandchildren and come to the conclusion that we must do a better job if we are to leave future generations with options and a quality of life. Whatever the real reasons, it is interesting to note that this trend has continued for many years in good economic times and in bad. There must be something there.