The saga of Big Bend Ranch

Seems the Texas businessman who angled to purchase a large section of Big Bend Ranch State Park in west Texas earlier this year, only to be thwarted by a public outcry at the discovery of the secret negotiations and by an ensuing vote of the Texas Parks and Wildlife commissioners, has not given up.

Thanks to the magic of Google News, I have discovered a story that I missed when it was reported by the Houston Chronicle a few weeks ago:

Despite the controversy that erupted over his unsuccessful attempt in August to acquire 46,000 acres from the state park system, [Houston businessman John] Poindexter said last week he may revive his purchase offer after next year's GOP gubernatorial contest, which he claims had a role in dooming the initial deal.

...

The 46,000 acres that the state considered selling him wasn't being sought to expand his resort facilities, as some critics asserted, he added.

"The development potential — as was so frequently cited in the hearing — for this property is as close to zero as anything could reasonably be in the state," he said.

...

Poindexter said he appreciates the public's resistance to selling any parkland.

"An emotion like that is, to me, rational. I wouldn't sell a square foot of Cibolo Creek Ranch," he said.

This Chronicle article is almost entirely about Poindexter and his proclaimed desire to rebuild his reputation and leave a positive legacy. Is it sincere, or part of a greenwash PR-job in advance of his next attempt to purchase the public property?

The Austin American-Statesman followed up with a more complete story on November 2. It goes into more detail about how the potential land deal developed behind-the-scenes:

Contrary to the hurried nature of the final negotiations, Poindexter actually approached the department about buying part of the park more than four years ago. Then-Executive Director Andrew Sansom, citing the fragile and archaeologically significant aspects of the area, rejected the proposal, and the issue died until Poindexter contacted Fitzsimons this year, according to records acquired by the American-Statesman.

Fitzsimons said negotiations with Poindexter regarding a conservation easement he believed would have protected water and Native American sites within the 46,000 acres made the sale worth considering. Negotiations continued almost until the Aug. 25 meeting began. The easement would have placed severe restrictions on Poindexter in terms of water use and required protection of sensitive archaeological sites on the property. The easement also would have allowed Poindexter to develop about 4,600 acres — or 10 percent of the property — along Cienega Creek.

"The (4,600) acres that was being proposed was the worst, from our standpoint," said Lawerence Oaks, executive director of the Texas Historical Commission. "That was the area that was occupied (by native peoples) for 10,000 years."

The potential conservation easement, and what it did not cover, was reported back in August when this news first broke, but it is a useful reminder. How do the exceptions to the easement jive with Poindexter's new claim about the "close to zero" development potential for this land?

If so, why not put conservation easements on the whole thing? 4,600 acres is not a small plot of land—if it were in central Texas, that would be one of our largest parks, all by itself.