House Panel Supports Broome Ranch Purchase

Congress inched closer to allocating money for parkland purchases in the Santa Monica Mountains on Tuesday, when a House subcommittee recommended that next year’s budget include $4 million to buy Broome Ranch or other property.

Although the National Park Service, as a federal agency, is not allowed to bid for Broome Ranch when the land is sold at an auction next month, Regional Supt. David Gackenbach said he could use the $4 million to buy part of the ranch from the winning bidder.

The Park Service has long coveted a swath of the 640-acre ranch near Rancho Sierra Vista. The hilly, scrub-covered land would provide a crucial link in an unbroken stretch of state and federal parkland sweeping through Point Mugu State Park to the Pacific Ocean.

“We want 143 acres, and the $4 million should cover that,” Gackenbach said.

The entire property, located southwest of Thousand Oaks, is scheduled to go on the auction block July 15. Because of the current market slump, some analysts have suggested Broome Ranch will sell for less than half its $12-million list price.

But even if the Park Service can snatch up part of Broome Ranch--or other long-desired properties, such as links on the 44-mile backbone trail--some environmentalists question the wisdom of spending millions on parkland acquisition, given the current fiscal crunch.

By threatening to push big projects through local government, developers have jacked up land values and forced park agencies to pay premium prices to preserve open space, said Neil Moyer, president of the Ventura County Environmental Coalition.

“From a purely parochial view, we need every bit of habitat preserved and parkland in California is great, but . . . we could use the money a lot more cost-effectively,” Moyer said.

“I don’t think the way they’re going about acquiring land in the Santa Monica Mountains has good pragmatic policy rationale,” he said. “We’re spending too much money for the land.”

Yet Gackenbach defended the federal government’s purchases, noting that park agencies pay only fair market values according to current appraisals. And other environmentalists said they were thrilled at the prospect of securing $4 million for more acquisitions.

“That’s wonderful news,” said Cassandra Auerbach, a member of the Sierra Club’s Conejo Valley branch. “Given all our air pollution and traffic problems, it’s especially important to get parkland here.”

Before earning a line in the final budget for fiscal year 1994, the $4-million allocation must still pass muster in the full House and Senate and win approval from President Clinton, who has urged Congress not to allocate any money for California parks this year.

Traditionally, the Senate is more tight-fisted in allocating funds, but park advocates hope that California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who sits on the Senate Appropriations Committee, will be able to push for more money to buy parkland.

“We’re keeping our fingers crossed,” said Susan Little, a field representative for Rep. Anthony C. Beilenson (D-Woodland Hills), who pushed the House Appropriations subcommittee on the Interior to recommend funding for local parkland acquisition.

Last year, Congress appropriated $13.2 million to acquire more property for the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, and Beilenson had lobbied for as much as $20 million in the 1994 budget. But, in a statement released Tuesday, he expressed satisfaction with the $4-million figure.

“In this budget climate, any amount--no matter how modest--is a victory,” he said.

The House appropriations panel also included $310,000 for a study of the Santa Monica Mountains to identify lands containing American Indian artifacts and other matters of archeological and historic interest and prepare information about the mountains’ natural and cultural resources.

“This study will be useful in helping the National Park Service establish priorities for land acquisition and in providing more information about the park’s resources for everyone who visits it,” Beilenson said.