|
Source
Support grows for controversial Pinal rail yard By Sean Holstege The Republic | azcentral.com Thu Nov 22, 2012 11:14 PM A controversial rail-yard proposed near Picacho Peak is gaining support from a handful of local, state and federal politicians who are pressuring the state to sell the land quickly to Union Pacific Corp. The freight giant wants to build its biggest yard between Los Angeles and Texas along the east side of Interstate 10 on farmland owned by the Arizona State Land Trust. Union Pacific first applied with the Arizona State Land Department to buy the land in 2006. The application has been stalled — first by Union Pacific, then by the recession. In September, a pair of Land Department reports raised concerns about the plan. While consultants recommended a sale, they also said that the rail yard posed significant environmental and engineering challenges and advised that the touted economic benefits were exaggerated. On Wednesday, the Pinal County Board of Supervisors voted to send a six-page letter to State Land Commissioner Maria Baier urging her to “quickly move to auction the property at a price that allows the bidder to have a financially feasible project.” Pinal County Supervisor Pete Rios wrote that the state is relying on a report “that was rife with fallacies, misinformation and long-shot suppositions.” He supports a sale. Early this month, U.S. Rep. Trent Franks wrote a similar letter to Gov. Jan Brewer. “It would be deeply disappointing if our state cannot act fast enough to capture this opportunity,” Franks wrote, concluding, “I can think of no plausible reason for not taking action.” And state Senate President-elect Andy Biggs, calling himself “an advocate for this important project,” wrote Baier last month that he is frustrated by how long the auction has taken. He also criticized the consultants’ findings and said, “It is imperative that this auction be scheduled by the end of the year.” Baier, who recently announced she will leave her job as land commissioner at month’s end to head the Sonoran Institute, said the land in consideration is near an important transportation corridor. “This is I-10. Just because we don’t do something in my lifetime doesn’t mean it won’t be something really good,” she explained. “That bothers a lot of people who are looking at this as something to do in their lifetimes. I know I’ll be dead before we run out of state land. My job is to protect the perpetual trust.” It’s not unusual for a significant sale to attract political attention, Baier said, adding that this time, a politically and economically powerful company is lobbying for support. Union Pacific has “hired a lot of professionals to promote this project,” she said. “I think you have a lot of highly paid professionals paid to create urgency.” Union Pacific has said it will invest $250 million to develop the 950-acre site, which would employ up to 300 workers. The project, called the Red Rock Classification Yard, has pitted the economic-development ambitions of the county against the plans of some nearby landowners. Supporters see a potential freight-logistics business park as a chance for badly needed jobs in a struggling economy and a way to diversify the local economy. Opponents worry that such a place would ruin the views from the nearby Picacho Peak State Park, poison the groundwater and create noise pollution. Supporters and opponents question whether the touted benefits and the potential drawbacks have been overstated. Red Rock would be a switching yard. The facility would be 6 miles long and up to 74 tracks wide. There, Union Pacific workers would break apart trains and reassemble them based on the destinations of cargo. Union Pacific said even if the land is sold quickly, it may be years before it opens because the company will have to iron out engineering complexities. The proposal is supported by those who see the opportunity for hundreds of jobs. “We see this as an economic engine for the county. It’s a good fit,” Rios said. “If we don’t get Union Pacific, I see empty land there for decades. Our concern is if they have to wait too long, they’ll drop it.” Union Pacific is developing a similar site in eastern New Mexico. The State Land Department was set up in the state Constitution and federal law to take a long view of managing the land. It manages a perpetual land trust, with money largely dedicated to supporting public education. The state’s job is to protect that investment, selling land at the most advantageous price and time, regardless of the uses or short-term economic benefits. “From the trustees’ perspective, this is a pricing deal,” Baier said. The Land Department and Union Pacific are trying to set up meetings to review engineering and environmental details, but no dates have been set. “We are continuing to review the studies in detail, but our plans haven’t changed,” said Zoe Richmond, Union Pacific’s public-affairs director in Arizona. She declined further comment but said the company is “grateful for the support” of politicians and repeated past claims that Red Rock is the only Arizona site suitable for the rail company’s needs. The state wants to ensure that it doesn’t devalue hundreds of square miles of its trust land to the east by blocking access to that land with a large rail yard. Talks will steer toward fair compensation for any impacts. |