Alachua County seeks applicants for Land Conservation Board
Press release from Alachua County
ALACHUA COUNTY, Fla. – Alachua County is seeking applicants to fill three anticipated vacancies on the Land Conservation Board (LCB). If you are passionate about protecting water resources, creating larger interconnected wildlife corridors, or interested in protecting places for passive public recreation, the County encourages you to apply.
The upcoming vacancies are two citizen at-large positions and one alternate with terms ending on Sept. 30, 2028.
The LCB provides an opportunity for citizen involvement in the selection of Alachua County Forever Conservation lands, which are funded through the voter-approved Wild Spaces Public Places surtax. The board reviews and recommends properties for acquisition through the Alachua County Forever Program to the County Commission and provides feedback on stewardship issues.
Meeting Details
The board meets in person, typically on the fourth Thursday of each month at 5:30 p.m. at the Alachua County Administration Building (12 SE 1st St., Gainesville) in the Grace Knight Conference Room. Meetings generally last one to two hours, though they may vary depending on the agenda.
Interested applicants may apply online here. Click “View Vacancies” in the top right and scroll down to the Land Conservation Board. Please submit applications by Nov. 17, 2024.
The rest of Alachua County seeks people to pay higher taxes as more land come off the tax rolls.
Why not just refer to it as the “Screw Neighbors by Increasing Property Taxes Advisory Board”?
Or SNIPT.
The land converted to public ownership under this is typically not valuable or even usable for agriculture – a dying practice in the once agricultural powerhouse of Alachua County – or development – like we need more urban sprawl a long way from infrastructure – and is often mostly wetlands. Even for those who don’t take advantage of public use of these lands for walking, maintaining a healthy percentage of natural lands benefits the mental health of residents, not to mention habitats for the flora and fauna that still abounds here.
It would be interesting to see a study of tax dollars lost through this program, and my guess is, not much given the benefits. Hey, if don’t like it, move to Orlando. Plenty of subdivisions there for you to enjoy.
That would be good to see.
You’ve got so much time on your hands, have at it. Don’t forget to check all the dollars lost to “conservation easements” also. While you’re at it, throw in those 600+ acres off 241 that were deeded to UF for “brainstorming.” I think a particular wedding venue, owned by a local grocer, may have benefited from conservation protections as well. Those government owned moats work well if you’re fortunate enough to have one.
Combined with the river front properties purchased, I’m fairly confident there’s been a substantial loss of tax revenue to the County that will have to be found elsewhere.
I’d even wager those properties, “typically not valuable or even usable for agriculture,” sure provided a greater value to the owners once the properties were bought by the County. Likely even more value than the original purchase price, but please, feel to correct me if I’m wrong. Given your success and the potential ROI, you may even want to consider buying some slough, the County is sure to make a good offer or you could just give it to them.
Your the one who thinks lost taxes are the only important factor in the Wild Spaces program, so you do the work.
Conservation easements are a different issue and at least the first example you mention would be much more valuable to the owner as a sale to developers. If your consistent, I assume you’d like to see the San Felasco Preserve subdivided. But hey, if you want more subdivisions, traffic, and infrastructure costs, just move to Orlando.
Wrong again.
Much more difficult to control property sold to a developer because of implied restrictions. The county wants restrictions on development which more often than not falls in line with many liberal hypocrites view of, “I got mine and don’t want to share.”
San Felasco is a locally valuable piece of pristine natural environment and should never be divided. I’ve ridden and walked many a mile throughout, hunted Turkey Creek woods before Turkey Creek was there.
I’m against the continual spending of tax dollars for properties to add to the overall county ownership of lands that will cause an increase of property taxes to current owners, and will most assuredly cause the unaffordability of housing to those the county, and city, claim to want to help. The city and county can barely afford to maintain what’s already been purchased and they want to add more?
Get real, someone has to make up the difference and those entities aren’t going to tax themselves.
Testing