By Jim Stanford on February 8, 2008
Last night’s meeting with the Forest Service was an IMAX-caliber theater of the absurd. Citizens eviscerated the agency’s proposal to move its Bridger-Teton headquarters from downtown Jackson and sell up to $50 million worth of public land. All 14 people who spoke denounced the plan.
Some of the sharpest words came from Hank Phibbs, representing the county and city government. Phibbs said the Forest Service is “engaged in a shadow dance,” having already made a decision and holding a public meeting for show.
Joe Albright, who before retiring to run his family’s Flat Creek Ranch won every journalism award shy of the Pulitzer, obtained documents through the Freedom of Information Act that show the Forest Service’s regional office in Ogden, Utah, has decided to sell part or all of the 16-acre site on North Cache Drive. The agency has done this, Albright said, without the proper analysis required by law.
Sitting through the meeting, it became apparent that:
- 1. The decision is being driven by the upper levels of the Bush-Cheney administration and thus is subject to bureaucratic incompetence;
- 2. The high cost of housing employees in Jackson is merely an excuse;
- 3. This is part of a broader effort to sell off public land to fund our bankrupt government; and
- 4. The Forest Service is breaking the law and likely will be sued.
In yesterday’s preview, I got the story line wrong. Yes, there is mystery and intrigue surrounding who will develop the property, but the underlying tale is a sad account of public servants and land stewards being starved into irrelevancy, as Joe Kinsella, a 33-year Forest Service veteran, painfully related.
Throughout the meeting, forest officials urged everyone to be brief and to take caution driving home because of a dangerous blizzard that closed all the major roads into Jackson Hole. It was a perfect illustration of why it makes no sense for the agency to outsource 50 employees to Alpine, Afton or Pinedale and make them commute in such conditions every day.
————-
See also:
• Forest Service on the big screen (Feb. 7, 2008)
• for sale: public lands agency, closed auction (Nov. 29, 2007)
Posted under environment, national forest, politics
A few more thoughts:
The gathering ostensibly was a “public meeting” in which the Forest Service sought input. But this process would have been conducted behind closed doors if the press hadn’t ferreted out details, after Forest Service employees provided a memo about the proposal. The public would have been excluded. Only when an uproar was raised was this meeting scheduled.
High-level Forest Service brass discussed selling or leasing the public land as far back as the summer of 2006. Yet at last night’s meeting, citizens were asked to fill out a one-page questionnaire and make the case for keeping or moving the supervisor’s office based on “what does that community offer the Forest and/or employee.” There was about a half-inch of space to answer this question. It was announced that public comment would be taken — for one week!
Other options were presented besides moving to Lincoln or Sublette counties. The one pitched as most reasonable was selling part or all of the current headquarters site and moving the offices to South Highway 89, behind Lower Valley Energy. That land is classified as crucial winter range for mule deer and other species.
Also raised was the possibility of building housing or offices on public land managed by the Forest Service on Nelson Drive (end of East Hansen) and at the mouth of Cache Creek.
A representative for U.S. Sen. Mike Enzi was said to be in the audience. I did not have a chance to speak, and I did not find this rep afterward, but if I had I would have suggested keeping the HQ on its current site and redeveloping it in partnership with the Jackson Hole Community Housing Trust, Teton County Housing Authority and other government agencies, as these groups have offered.
The price tag for new offices and housing could reach $20 million, forest officials said, but I would be willing to press Wyoming’s congressional delegation to earmark that money by reducing spending on the new Iraqi Forest Ministry.
Also, Harv Forsgren, the regional forester in Ogden, did not show for the meeting. He sent out his deputies, mostly local staff, to take the bullets.
Your headline should be “citizen performs journalistic legwork local press can’t be bothered with.”
JS,
I am beginning to doubt the value of anonymous commentary on this or any other blog. Too many people are anxious to tarnish an otherwise valuable site with their vitriolic spray because it is so easy to hide in cyberspace. Perhaps, if everyone had to state their real name they would be less likely to slander people and have to actually formulate a mature opinion. While I do not always agree with Swift’s statements, at least he is forthright with them.
Anonymous posts have done nothing on this site but allow locals to be slandered by cowards. It is getting old. I think you should have to set up an account in order to make a post to ensure some sense of accountability.
Doug Workman
I deleted the anonymous comment in question. The person wrote back to say they intended for me to see it but assumed I would delete it.
Perhaps I’ll be more judicious in which comments I allow, but I’m hesitant to get into censorship.
Sorry to distract, but it’s like the town administrator trying to tell long time locals that the city of Jackson gets 500 inches of snow, plus the added redneck accented bs like, “wwellll, if ya gon liv n sno countree, then ya gon havta …” On a really good year, this metro gets about 100″ in town, top of SK about 150″, TV close to 500″, the Ghee a proclaimed 500″ +. Point being, as you build your case, be precise. Hence,
Anon, the word is “weren’t” when you’re dealing with a hypothetical or conditional situation - not “wasn’t.”
Now, precisely, where ‘was’ we? Reckon I’d be a good spokesperson for the FS?? Distracting, illusive, perhaps unethical, or maybe slightly untruthful? Really, how many yr-rnd full-time BTNF folks do not own a home here in the valley? I don’t know.
I agree, the one you deleted should have been deleted. Gracias. I appreciate this forum and believe that most people that write here have good intentions to communicate, educate, and share ideas. This forest service thing seems to probably be just another game played by our government. It makes me wonder how they treat other aspects of their job as public lands officials.