HARRISBURG House rejects proposal to remove restriction on state-owned farmland

Farmland preservation advocates praised the state House vote.
HARRISBURG (AP) -- A proposal to remove a deed restriction on a parcel of state-owned farmland in northwestern Pennsylvania to clear the way for possible retail development was overwhelmingly rejected by the state House of Representatives.
The 150-50 vote last week against the change was praised by farmland preservation advocates, who say removing the restriction on land that was once farmed by psychiatric patients at Warren State Hospital could encourage the removal of similar restrictions elsewhere in Pennsylvania.
But the House also approved a motion to reconsider that vote, meaning that Republican leaders could bring it up for another vote in the future.
"We know that all the members of the House are concerned about the preservation of farmland in the commonwealth. In this instance, however, many have been tempted to stray from their convictions," said Gary Swan, a spokesman for the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau. "This would establish an unfortunate precedent, and we're still hopeful that lawmakers will continue to resist that temptation."
Preservation
The farm bureau has said it was unaware of any other instance in Pennsylvania in which an agricultural-use restriction had been either removed or transferred to another piece of property. The state has about 2,250 farms encompassing about 265,000 acres that have been protected under farmland preservation.
Some Warren County officials have said removal of the agricultural restriction is vital to attracting jobs and boosting tax revenue in a county that has lost much of its manufacturing base.
"We need help in Warren County. Thirty-three percent of the land is owned by the government, and 98 percent of what's left is on a hillside," said Rep. James Lynch, R-Warren, who sponsored the measure.
The land in question is a stretch of about 67 acres in three parcels that forms the northwest corner where Routes 62 and 69 intersect in North Warren. Two of the parcels have already been transferred to the county from the state, which owned the land as part of the Warren State Hospital.
Before the February 2001 transfer of one of the parcels, a 22.7-acre tract, the state Legislature placed an agricultural restriction on it, according to the state Department of General Services, which previously owned the land. The other two parcels bear no such restriction.
Lynch's measure would transfer the third parcel, 29.6 acres, to the county and would remove the agricultural restriction on the other 22.7-acre parcel.
Conflict of intent
Rep. Sheila Miller, R-Berks, was among those who argued against the bill, saying they had been deluged with letters and e-mails from opponents in recent days. Miller said authorizing the land transfer conflicts with the intent of the state's more than 20-year-old farmland preservation law.
"Building a retail business on prime farmland was not part of that bill, and that should not be permitted in 2003," she said. "This law was passed with the foresight that these state farms surrounding our state hospitals would become targets for development."
County Commissioner Steven Sigmund has said the plan is to build a group of stores anchored by several large, nationwide retailers, but those plans would be scuttled if the agricultural deed restriction cannot be removed from the 22.7-acre parcel.
Ultimately, the county commissioners want to transfer the agricultural deed restriction to 46 acres of undeveloped land about seven miles east, near Scandia. The Farm Bureau contends that would circumvent the spirit of farmland preservation by deed restricting a piece of land that is less attractive to developers.