Liza McKenna
Joe Dearmitt
Jess Mannion
Group One: Problem Solving Activity
X-Bar Ranch Division
The community of Tortuga was established in 1871as a silver mining town. Later, the mines were no longer used and the town was abandoned. Over the years the town of Tortuga has been rebuilt and is the home of 1500 residents in search of a small community lifestyle. There is now more opportunity for housing and development in Tortuga. There are many possibilities for the development and/or preservation of the land. Now that the owners, Ed Middleton and his wife, have passed away, the once flourishing X-Bar Ranch is up for sale. The three Middleton children all agreed to sell the land after they decided not to follow in the footsteps of their parents. The total amount of available land is 15,000 acres; and there are six total proposals for it.
Elena Sinespina and Toby Nunn own ranches on either side of the X-Bar Ranch and now that it is for sale, Elena’s son Gil has decided he would like to purchase and manage the ranch himself. Sydney Stone, a developer from Sierra Grande would like to purchase the land and further develop the area of Tortuga with 400 homes. At the same time the situation is complicated further. The San Cristobal District Ranger for the U.S. Forest Service, Pat Wright has decided to further reduce grazing allotments. Even though the ranch owners feel this is unnecessary, the grazing allotments have already been reduced by one-third. The County Planner Brady Euclid has been very worried for the outcome of Sydney Stone’s plan. It is in clear violation of the area’s comprehensive plan and last month Brady Euclid approached the Country Planning Board to carefully review Stone’s plans. If Stone decides not to build, the land would potentially be purchased by Blake Worstcase, who would then subdivide it, to prepare for 160 ranchettes. Lastly, the State Game and Fish Commission representative, Joe Waterstone, has the best interest in the changes that would impact the wildlife of the area. He would like to preserve the area for them as best as possible. Out of all the options, there is no clear cut solution that will please everyone. All of the people involved will have to come to an agreement and sacrifice for the greater good.
As a group we decided the best decision was to split up the land to all interested parties. No one could get exactly what he or she wanted so instead, each person had to compromise. They had to settle for a solution that was not necessarily ideal, but met their needs to some extent. Sydney Stone was given the 200 acres he had desired, but only granted permission to build 300 homes rather than the 400 he had originally planned to place on the land. He also had to agree with the needs of the environment, to do so he agreed to avoid building too close to the water in order to reduce contamination while still leaving open a small public entrance to nearby mountain trails. The ranchers, were then given 100 acres combined. Additionally, they agreed to split the 15,000 acres of grazing allotment in to thirds. They will now graze their cattle on only two of the three sections at a time. The sections being grazed upon will then be rotated every five years. This will give each section time to rejuvenate. The remaining 340 acres was then sold to Blake Worstcase for his ranchettes.
The final decision for how the land would be allocated was not settled without controversy and ultimately, displeasure for some. The piece of land in need of division was undoubtedly large; however the opinions that surfaced during debate over the topic were larger. When this many people are involved with one project, it is hard to please all of them. This is especially apparent when their views are antagonistic to one another. Problems were destined to happen from the beginning, but most were either solved or compromised for by the end, resulting in limited detest.
Above all, everyone learned that every opinion could be considered, but not necessarily accepted. This was by far the most difficult problem to overcome. For example, when the builders wanted to build 400 homes, the environment would suffer. Although the builders would be satisfied, the environments would not be... Likewise, the U.S. Forest Service wanted to reduce grazing, for long term eco-system protection, but that would interfere with the expansion plans of the farmers. Of course no party would willingly want to give up or compromise their position for something they don’t believe in. To overcome this problem, all groups’ ideals were evaluated. The land allocation had to be viewed as a whole picture, instead of just the pieces to the puzzle. By looking at the big picture, the people were able to evaluate the long and short term effects of how the land would be used. The needs of one party, might not have been sufficed at this moment in time, but instead they would be met somewhere down the road and vise versa.
Initially, we the people of SAGE wanted Sidney Stone to give up ranching and the idea of developing the land altogether. This land belonged to the Gray Hawk, and should be preserved for them! Of course Stone refused to take either of our suggestions, but instead agreed to build fewer homes. Although this wasn’t ideal, we accepted the compromise of responsible development. In theory our plan was ideal, but sadly at the moment, we just didn’t have the funds to support our plan. Some of our members took great distaste to this compromise and we are sad to say, they have since left our organization.
I, the U.S. Forest Service District Ranger, am relatively pleased with the compromise of land allotment. The ecosystem is of upmost importance to us and the reduction of grazing, although not considerably large, was essential for maintenance of this ecosystem. Allowing the animals to only graze on certain areas of the land for 5 years, then rotating them to another part of land promotes the regeneration of the grasslands. As far as the Gray Hawk preservation goes, the SAGE organization is content with the decision thus far, but I believe that easements will have to be purchased in the future, to avoid discontent.
The ultimate goal for my investors and I is to purchase 400 units at minimum we will hopefully have at least 225. I decided to settle for 300 and after much debate agreed to move away from the river to reduce pollution. Even though it will decrease the view and the value of the land, it will still be profitable. The profit from 300 units will support my investments and at the same time, keep my investors happy. I’m not happy about the deal made with Blake Worstcase and the 340 acres he is bening given to build ranchetts. There are already enough ranches in the area and that remaining 340 acres could have been used to add tom my profit and the profits of my investors. Now that he has the land, it will devalue my property and hurt my earnings. I guess I will have to work with what I was given and make the best of it.
The ranchers were given a combined 100 acres. This was a plan they had come up with together, so they were both relatively satisfied. Toby Nunn had been considering an offer to sell his own rancher, but did want to keep ranching alive in the area. Buying the extra 100 acres with Gil should help make that happen. Gil Sinespina did not want Sydney Stone to get the land for his development idea but was ready to support it only if he were to build fewer units, which he has agreed to. Buying the 100 acres was his idea so he is satisfied that they went through with doing so. However, both the ranchers are not happy about the grazing allotment rotation idea. They would certainly prefer to keep grazing on all 15,000 acres, but the chosen plan is better than an overall reduction. There will be much less overall ranch land now, so there will be fewer cows needing to graze on the land anyway. Therefore, 10,000 acres at a time will be sufficient. Originally the land was only going to be split in half and rotated that way. The ranchers felt that 7,500 acres at a time was not sufficient, so the plan was revised to better suit their needs.
The County Planner, Brady Euclid’s biggest concern was the number of units Sydney Stone planned to build. Stone was willing to agree on fewer units so the County Planner, whom we all represented, was pleased overall with the outcome. He was concerned about building being done on the east side of Tortuga because it might block access to the old mining trails for the Recreational Off-Riders. Since Sydney Stone has agreed to leave an area and trail open for public entrance, Brady had no problems with the construction being done on the east side.
The decisions made here are final for now, but as the area continues to grow, the need for more housing will also increase the demand for land and development. Out of all the options there really was no one clear cut solution that would sufficiently please everyone. All of the people involved had to make certain sacrifices to help make everyone happy while still benefiting the greater good.
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.