Conservancy Spending

Re “Conservancy Accused of Misspending,” April 29.

I must take issue with the state auditors for criticism of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy for paying interest on promissory notes for two acquisitions, namely Paramount Ranch and Towsley Canyon. First, I question the qualifications of auditors to make decisions about the habitat and resource value of potential land acquisition.

The auditors’ suggestion of paying cash for the 1991 acquisitions would have resulted in securing between 1,100 and 2,000 acres instead of the 3,819 actually protected.

The two acquisitions under criticism were under threat of development, Paramount Ranch as a 150-unit subdivision and Towsley Canyon as a sanitary landfill, namely a dump. Instead of criticizing, the auditors should praise the conservancy for taking limited funds and getting more for their money. There is nothing illegal about financing the acquisition of land on time by issuing a promissory note secured by a deed of trust.

As a retired businessman, I would allow the conservancy to make fiscal decisions for me without hesitation.

IRVING SCHEIDLINGER

Westlake Village

* Kudos for your editorial on April 20, which commended the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy for not making a snap decision to buy a 36-acre parcel of land adjacent to Topanga State Park at an inflated price to keep it from being developed before the owner’s permits lapse (“In This Case, Conservancy Is Wise to Save Cash, Not Land”).

The conservancy’s charge is clear: to acquire mountain land for public ownership. But it is not required to cast aside good judgment and sound business sense in the pursuit of that mandate. By not investing too much money in this parcel the conservancy can make its scarce funds go further by buying more prudently elsewhere.

In any case, the marketability of homes that might be built on this land is suspect, since its only access is from the unpaved portion of Mulholland Drive. The builder must disclose to potential buyers that this access road may never be paved by the city of Los Angeles. That knowledge should discourage buyers and help the conservancy resist the developer’s efforts to sell his land to this public agency at an overblown price.

MARVIN BRAUDE

City Council, 11th District

* The community as a whole should support the conservancy in not allowing a developer whose sole motive is profit to hold ransom the integrity of open space. It is unfair to force the conservancy to pay the piper an obviously over-inflated price for a totally unmarketable piece of land. Truly, this is more an issue as to whether or not the land should have been approved for development in the beginning.

JONATHAN SIDY

Tarzana

* The [Valley Edition] editorial, which emphasized that the conservancy should not pay $2.5 million for the 36-acre Rancho Estates property on dirt Mulholland, hit the nail on the head.

At $69,500 an acre, Rancho Estates is not the ticket. Unfortunately, the mountains may have to bleed to hold the moral line about not being bullied by developers. To prevent this outcome, two events should transpire: Owner Tom Steers should cut his price to the conservancy in half. Second, the Los Angeles City Council should, quite justifiably, hold firm and deny any paving of dirt Mulholland to provide access to this ill-conceived project in an unincorporated mountainous area.

DOROTHY JEANNE STOLARZ

Woodland Hills

* I have come to appreciate the conservancy’s experience in dealing with developers, bureaucrats, and misguided city and county planners within our ever-expanding area. What would our local mountains and precious surrounding open spaces be without the intelligent efforts of the conservancy? I support the conservancy’s misunderstood position. Every time I enjoy my nature walks in the middle of this metropolis, I thank them.

JOANNA MOORE

Topanga Canyon

* I voted for Proposition A last November in the expectation that the conservancy would buy the most important land, according to a rational priority listing system. If the Steers property does not meet that criterion, then it should not be bought.

I am a regular hiker in the Santa Monica Mountains, and there is so much more for the conservancy to do, such as finishing the Backbone Trail, than to bother itself with one developer’s property.

MEGAN WILLIAMS

Pacific Palisades