I am a proud resident of rural Itasca County in the great north woods of Northern Minnesota. My corner of the world stands on the western end of the storied Iron Range which itself rests on the edge of a massive forest that stretches for miles, fading into marshes, rivers, lakes and the Canadian border to the north. We’ve got more than 1,000 of Minnesota’s “10,000” lakes in Itasca County. I live on among the muddiest, least describable of those lakes, blogging into a satellite internet connection that beams up to space and back into whatever it is you read this on. Your phone? It’s a miracle, anyway.
The future of this place is often discussed in terms of its declining population. Beginning with the economic collapse of the 1980s through the globalization of the early 2000s, the number of Iron Range mining jobs contracted to less than half the amount of the 1970s. Former Gov. Rudy Perpich was quoted in 1988 (most recently in this worthwhile recent Pioneer Press story about the 1980s recession) saying that the Iron Range “will never be the same. Never, never never.” He was right. The population hasn’t recovered and might not for a generation or three. But the importance of the area won’t necessarily be in the number of people who live here, but how those people handle the resources of the area: minerals, waters and forests.
Today, I’ll be referring to the Upper Mississippi Forest project, a major land easement in my neighborhood that would be funded by money from the Lessard Council, i.e. the state sales tax revenue dedicated to the outdoors and arts. Why does this matter? Because going into northern Minnesota’s future, the major challenges facing this generation is the preservation of local, public access to our resources. If we fail in preserving local benefit from water, minerals and forests, northern Minnesota becomes what powerful outside forces have always wanted us to become: a resource colony for the super rich.
Project proponents describe the project this way:
187,277 acres of prized forestland in north-central Minnesota, including 60,000 acres of wetlands and over 280 miles of lake and stream front, are proposed for permanent conservation with a working forest conservation easement. Coupled with other Minnesota Forests for the Future projects, this large, private industrial forest conserves more land than the current state park system. The project protects jobs, preserves wildlife habitat, sustains forests and ensures permanent public access for outdoor recreation. The trend of selling industrial lands to investors creates fragmentation and threatens the working forest, access and habitat.
The size of this project can’t be understated. In northern Minnesota large tracts of relatively unused land are everywhere, owned by counties, the state, and, more often, paper companies or mining companies. In this case, the perpetual easements would come from Blandin Paper. Blandin can’t keep the vast lands it now has and is apparently faced with a decision about whether to sell the land to private buyers. Normally, that’s no big deal, but in this case some of the largest portions of unsegmented forest in northern Minnesota could be broken up, including lands that have been used for decades for recreation, hunting and wildlife habitat. By purchasing these perpetual easements, private owners would keep the notes (and pay the taxes) on the land, log the land every several decades and maintain public access to the land.
Politics in Minnesota posted a story from St. Paul Legal Ledger writer Charlie Shaw about the project on Feb. 23.
The Upper Mississippi Forest proposal, which was presented to the Lessard council on Monday, has a “place holder” price tag of $50 million. That’s a sizable amount of the $70 million that the amendment is expected to provide in its first year. However, state Department of Natural Resources needs about two-and-a-half weeks to complete an appraisal of the land.
… Buying a conservation easement is different than buying the land outright. UPM Blandin would continue to the log the property. But the easement would prohibit development and subdivision of the forest for perpetuity. It would also require public access for recreational purposes ranging from deer hunting to mushroom gathering. And there would also be requirements for sustainable timber harvesting.
The opportunity to preserve Northern Minnesota lands for public use in perpetuity is legitimately once in a lifetime. Though many of these lands wouldn’t necessarily have a buyer in this economy, the choice spots would and that could lead to the segmentation of land that we’re trying to avoid. Most folks I’ve talked to consider the Lessard Council funding a long shot given the huge budget request, but it would be a worthy endeavor. The land value assessment is due back the middle of this month. We’ll know more then.
I know that setting aside land will rankle lots of people. After all, I lived through the BWCA struggles of the late 70’s, etc. And also, we are still wondering about the “new state park” over on Lake Vermilion.
Setting aside land forever must be seriously considered, however. It can be set aside now or broken up now, but once broken up, it would be close to impossible to get it back into large holdings, regrow a forest, or take it away from private ownership. Kept in a more open, natural state, it could always be sold off in the future, but the process doesn’t work well going backwards.
The wood products and paper companies have, until the last several years, held large tracts of land and managed them for the future by planting trees in areas that they have logged. Some of these companies have sold their factories to companies/groups with less interest in keeping the land producing for the future, so the reforestation isn’t a priority anymore. Consider Potlatch, which had foresters to manage the forests. Potlatch became Ainsworth which went bankrupt and is now owned by __?__, and closed, but for sale. You can be sure that a company that isn’t making money in an area isn’t doing much management. Pine paneling in the local lumberyard is imported from Russia via Germany. Who has any interest in restoring and replanting the forests here when the wood comes from elsewhere and the local loggers aren’t getting jobs off of this?
The long term good of the forest, whether in public or private hands, needs to be considered.
This would be great for existing property owners in Itasca county. My Dad has a house and 80 acres North of Goodland. On two sides his land is bordered by Blandin land, this would ensure that the solitude and Northwoods feel will remain for years to come.
There are many areas of Itasca county, especially in lakes regions, that have been chopped up and subdivided. Public access to large tracts of land in these areas has been very limited.
I like how you describe outsiders plans for Northern Minnesota, “a resource colony for the super rich.” I have seen this first hand in many areas of Itasca county already. Not to mention Lake Vermillion, which has become an elitist escape spot for the Uber-Wealthy.
Even more worrisome is that if land easement is not undertaken, parcels of land will be bought and subdivided into thousands of, “cabins”. “Cabins”, for thousands of upper middle class suburbanites from the Twin Cities and Chicago. Land along many, many roads in Northern Minnesota would start to look like Exurban Minneapolis. Ever been to the, “country”, areas around Corcoran, or Delano, or many other exurbs? Every road is lined with houses on farmland that was subdivided and developed.
Without the land easement first the prime properties would be bought up quickly and immediately developed. After that the less desirable places would be bought and developed, and after that new roads would be made for houses in the now defunct Northwoods.
This is an issue that will have an impact in our lifetime, and will become even greater for our children. If action is not taken now, much stands to be lost.
The township I live in has restrictions about any new houses can’t be on less than 40 acres. This is, of course, a difficulty for someone wanting to develop some land. But the powers that be have been old land owners who want to keep the farm and woods nature of the township. I’m not sure how this issue has been working itself out, but they haven’t wanted to be open to creative solutions such as small parcels here and there.
Another issue: private people who put land into a special category to keep it from being developed. We have done that with a nice parcel of lake property through the Minnesota Land Trust. People have thought that those that do this do it for a tax break. There usually is a tax break, but there are a number of expenses associated with the legal process to accomplish this, so any savings isn’t seen for a few years. The reason to do this is to keep the whole lake shore from becoming developed. People also don’t realize that the land is actually inspected by the Land Trust each year to make use that the rules haven’t been broken. I’m not sure we could count on the government inspecting land that is set aside.
Thank you all for your perspective! It’s important to note that this project calls for the land to remain privately held and logged. That may sound scary to some, but logging practices here are very responsible and usually compatible with wildlife and recreational use of the land. This is merely an effort to keep UPM-Blandin from chopping up the land and selling it to private clubs and developers to block land that has been available for public use for generations.
What struck me was the idea that the northland would be owned by folks from out of the area. What you missed here is the property tax code – because it is based on value rather than income of the owner, when the economy up north tanks, outside buyers can still force up the price of land AND the property tax, literally forcing locals who own lake shore or hunting land to sell out.
As a result of tis pressure the average size of a recreational lot in Itasca County has declined from 78 acres in 2001 to less than 50 today. And more forest and lake shore is owned by families than by the USFS, DNR or the timber industry. So while these easements are a good thing generally – it would be better to offer a tax incentive to people to manage their land sustainable and keep it in a whole block. In fact, this was one of the recommendations of the statewide Conservation and Preservation Plan – they list incentives as one of the most powerful tools for forest management.
I believe Jeff is right on, the way property taxes are set up is hard on locals. The income for those working in the Northland is very small compared to the income of many in the Twin Cities.
So when city people create a demand for land, and the property prices rise, locals are forced to pay more. I don’t know about others, but the land my family owns continues to rise in value even through the economic downturn. Taxes go up while disposable income goes down.
Yes, and no matter how high the land prices look to us, the prices look cheap to people from other places. They think they are getting a bargain. And if 6 places in a township sell in a year, they value of all the surrounding properties is reevaluated to reflect the difference (usually higher of course) in price by percentage, therefore the property tax goes up. At least that is how it works in St. Louis county. This is a good deal for the county board because they get more tax money without raising rates.