Rockview land transfer lacked public input

by Kerry A. Benninghoff

Much has been said about the Rockview state prison land deal. Most of the comments and contacts I have received expressed concern about the anticipated owner, not the overall proposal. The concerns were based on procedural―not substantive―grounds.

Sen. Jake Corman, R-Benner Township, originally introduced Senate Bill 740, a measure that would divest several local parcels of state land. The bill was approved in the Senate and, upon entering the House, was sent to the House State Government Committee for consideration. Rep. Mike Hanna, D-Lock Haven, offered an amendment that included the Rockview state prison land deal.

Local residents raised concerns about the proposed owner of the land. I must admit that I, too, have not been very supportive of the deal. I believe the lack of community support stems from the less-than-open process and lack of public input prior to the designation of the future owner of the land. This is the reason behind my own personal concerns. 

Prior to my appointment to the House State Government Committee, I spent several years pushing that body to change the process by which the state divests taxpayer assets, including land. In the Rockview land deal, interested buyers saw land they desired and set forth pursuing it. That’s fair enough; they have every right to do so.

Unfortunately, the land divestiture “process” quietly moved forward, not encouraging any other interested party to pursue the land. The public was left in the dark about the potential transfer of this land to new ownership. Thus, taxpayers―who are the current owners of the land―did not have ample opportunity to provide input about how to divest the land, what the best use for it would be or how to maximize the public’s return on the sale. In the interim, the pursuer became the preconceived owner.

The Department of General Services, which is the state agency that handles most land transfers, says the process is fine. However, as Hanna stated in a recent article, “the deck became stacked” in favor of one entity over any other.

I believe this is wrong. The existing process prohibited any public consideration for the best use of the land.  It also failed to take into consideration a more comprehensive plan with adjacent properties within the community.

During the House State Government Committee meeting, I raised objections to Hanna’s amendment and questioned the timing of the proposal. Despite those concerns, the bill was successfully amended.

There were only four of us on the committee who voted against Hanna’s amendment. Ironically, the Democratic chairwoman of the committee voted with me while the Republican chairman supported Hanna’s amendment. If nothing else, at least partisanship apparently played no role in the votes!

I also planned to offer an amendment to Corman’s bill when it came before the House State Government Committee. My amendment would have sold the land to the Pennsylvania Game Commission for twice the amount Penn State will pay and would have allowed Penn State to utilize the land for its desired agricultural research and study. Additionally, the PGC would have contributed payments in lieu of taxes on the property and provided the conservation expertise and law enforcement powers necessary to protect and preserve this property.

I believed my amendment was a win-win proposal. Unfortunately, the “process” worked against my amendment. Hanna’s measure was considered first. Under committee rules, I was able to speak about Hanna’s proposal but not compare and contrast it with the amendment I planned to offer.

Following approval of Hanna’s measure, my amendment became a moot point. It did not help that the committee needed to “vacate” the meeting room due to time constraints, leaving little time for consideration of additional amendments. So much for choice!

In addition, members generally defer to the legislator in whose district the land resides. Generally, if the member from that district has no objections, other members will support the bill or amendment. I must admit the land involved in the Rockview land deal is in Hanna’s district. It is in a county I represent and almost completely surrounds my district. However, from a “fraternal view,” it is still not in my district.
 
The governor and his administration are very supportive of this transfer. It has become very obvious this transfer is going to occur, in spite of my―or anyone else’s―objections.

When the bill came to the House floor for a vote, I offered several amendments in an attempt to make this transfer more acceptable. One of my amendments would specifically prohibit the application of any sludge on this property. I introduced this with hopes of protecting the pristine waterway that lies within the canyon. 

Additionally, I negotiated an extension of the original 35-year memorandum of understanding between the PGC and university. Under my amendment, the agreement would extend in perpetuity. I believe it is very important to provide access to hikers, sportsmen and others for future generations beyond 35 years and prevent the potential development or sale of this land.

We will have to trust that the easements, covenants and other safeguards that we added to this legislation will be in the best interest of the public. While these negotiated compromises are not my preference, that is the “process” in which these land transfers are currently done. In the end, I believe, it is better to get half a loaf instead of no loaf at all.

Republican Kerry A. Benninghoff is the state representative for the 171st District. .