Quit shrugging, start restoring wildlife path

So much for landmarks. A preserved corridor intended to allow safe passage for wildlife through a portion of central Pasco suburbia isn't so preserved after all.

The wildlife trail through the 1,200-home Oakstead subdivision is a requirement stemming from a legal challenge to the 1999 rezoning of 841 acres of pasture and forest land on the north side of State Road 54 west of U.S. 41. The suit, and another challenging Pasco's comprehensive land use plan, came from a cadre of residents under the name Citizens for Sanity who contended the development denied protections for deer and other wildlife, and that the county government as a whole was ambivalent toward protecting the environment.

The settlement in 2000 called for, among other things, the wildlife corridor through Oakstead, future environmental protections countywide and a change in the way the Pasco assembled its future land use plans. But, as Times staff writer Chuin-Wei Yap reported, landscaping from a pair of privately owned back yards has been extended into the property that was supposed to remain in a natural state.

The collective shrug of the shoulders from the county, which said it can't enforce the requirement, and Oakstead, whose community development district controls the land, is a disconcerting signal that the ambivalence hasn't disappeared.

The county's inability to act is most troubling. After Oakstead's developers, Devco, set aside land for the corridor that also cut across property intended as a public school site, the county's Development Review Committee added conditions in a zoning amendment intended to assure the corridor wouldn't be squeezed by home construction.

But that is exactly what happened. Privacy fencing separating the back yards from the corridor and pedestrian walking trail is in the wrong location. If the fence had been installed at the edge of the private lots behind 3355 and 3405 Sheehan Drive, nobody would have been able to extend the lawns, palm trees, hedges and sprinkler system into the corridor.

Home builder Sierra Building Co. said it would be happy to restore the trail if it was the one who landscaped improperly. County biologist Bob Tietz volunteered to help as well. Oakstead's community development district should take them up on the offer. It is unwise to look the other way as access to common property is obstructed. The neighborhood as a whole should seek to ward off the potential for a future claim of squatter's rights.

Likewise, the county should be encouraging the CDD to restore the corridor. It was the first tangible example of what was envisioned as a more significant commitment to environmental protections in the county. Since the landmark claim from Citizens for Sanity, the county and its electorate approved an environmental land acquisition program, and commissioners promised a wildlife protection ordinance that remains pending seven years after the settlement.

The slow pace is irritating, though the proposed ordinance and others like it are being drafted now as part of the rewritten comprehensive land plan.

Still, the Oakstead corridor raises a significant question for county commissioners: What good are environmental protections if nobody bothers to enforce them?

[Last modified November 19, 2007, 19:11:39]