Sitgreaves for sale/trade....

[hikeaz]

2 parcels of the Apache Sitgreaves Forest sold to a developer. Folks will now be golfing instead of hiking on portions of the Buena Vista Trail in Show Low. Parcels 210-01-49b and 50b.
[ Buena Vista Trail #637 - Show Low ]
I conjecture that the golf course homes will be "affordable" of course.

[Jim]

How large were they?

[chumley]

@hikeaz Care to share a link? Quick search came up empty for me.

[chumley]

@Jim_H
49B is almost a square mile, 628ac; 50B is 320ac, 948ac total. County assessed value ~$525,000

[hikeaz]

@chumley
Developers have been after this parcel for about 15 years. I guess with THIS degree of graft it takes awhile to reach 'understanding, receptive hands'.

https://www.archaeologysouthwest.org/pd ... MR-A-S.pdf

https://www.wmicentral.com/public_notic ... 963f4.html

https://books.google.com/books/about/Fi ... F90AEACAAJ

https://archive.epa.gov/region9/nepa/we ... e-deis.pdf

https://iucat.iu.edu/iupui/14022123

[DixieFlyer]

It sounds like it is a land swap. I'd be curious to know the market value of the land that the forest is receiving as compared to the market value of the land that the forest is giving up.

[chumley]

@hikeaz
I guess I was looking for information about what happened in 2024 to make the background that all those links refer to in 2011-2014 actually come to fruition now. E.g., who made the deal, who approved it, and which people that we voted for agreed to it?

[hikeaz]

In Pinetop for the summer... hiked the trail today ... saw a fencing contractor there with boucou fencing.... asked and heard from him. Followed up with a call to ASNF. As far as the signing parties, etc. I am uninformed on that. But we all likely know.....politicians de jour. I always love reading the USFS rhetoric about the benefits of these 'swaps' (after the fact) when it is clearly obvious the developers decide on what taxpayer-owned forest land THEY want and then go buy some Godforsaken parcel for a 'like-kind' exchange. (Spreading the 'magic dust' like Cheech) And providing their own appraisal of course. Almost never does the DoA solicit for these 'swaps'.

[chumley]

@hikeaz As far as I can tell, this was proposed, argued, and decided prior to 2014. When it was fully implemented is unclear to me, but I'd guess there was some kind of litigation involved causing the delay? FWIW, if/and how the Show Low South property is developed will be guided by the city of Show Low's zoning board, so residents there may still have some input. The Buena Vista Trail will be rerouted and maintain public access.

For those interested, the full history as well as the parcels of land the USFS is receiving in exchange is layed out in the Record of Decision found on the ASNF website here: https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?projec ... p=overview

[chumley]

Coconino County has a better assessor website, but I see that the previously private parcel on Leonard Canyon exchanged to the FS was last sold privately in 2004 for $2.5 million. It transferred to the title company involved in the land swap in 2009, and the transfer to the USFS was completed on 9/20/23 -- which I presume is the date the other lands were also tranferred as they were all held by the same title company. But by all info I can find, all of this was a done deal in 2014 even if not fully executed for 9 more years.

If ever there's a reason to embrace government bureaucracy, it's probably situations like this. It seems FS land sales/exchanges are pretty rare, and executing it takes a lot of bs and seemingly takes decades to complete. So there's that!

I'll probably be dead, and all of it will have burned down by the next time one happens anyway.

[ShatteredArm]

@chumley
The list of parcels being exchanged honestly doesn't look too bad overall. And I didn't find the Buena Vista area to be that remarkable, so as long as they're rerouting the trail this seems pretty reasonable.

[sam_hikes]

.

[Jim]

Hey, at least it isn't Sitgreaves Mountain!

Seriously, though, the lands exchanged are in-holdings in several AZ forests, which might be beneficial. The lands exchanged to developers makes more sense to me than developing those in holdings and further complicating management activities like fire management. It is sad that the hike is lost in total or part, but from a practical point of view maintaining those lands was complicated by it's location between 2 major roads and urban development.

[chumley]

@ShatteredArm I'd expect the folks who are least excited are those that own homes in the adjacent neighborhood who thought they purchased property adjacent to undeveloped forest land and who will now end up with neighbors in their backyard. If I paid a premium for property that abuts forest land only to have it swapped at a later date, I might consider legal action to recover losses from the reduced value of my property.

[ShatteredArm]

@chumley
I understand the frustration; however, they do not actually own the land in question, and I highly doubt they have any standing for legal action.

[Alston_Neal]

@chumley
This is true if your home was suddenly next to a freeway (like ours). If you buy land next to a NF you have to be prepared for the fact that either it burns down and or your property. So now these folks might have less to worry about when it come to a forest fire. Although the sight of flaming golfers does have an appeal I can't deny.