The January 10th issue of the Journal included an excellent letter of opinion submitted by Mark Fishaut, titled “Moving forward with the Land Bank.” Mark noted the Town to Zylstra Lake Trail fiasco as reason for review of the entire LB operation. The January 24th issue of the Journal included three rebuttals. Jim Skoog wrote “The mysterious Zylstra Lake Trails fiasco has absolutely nothing to do with the Land Bank”. Cynthia Brast wrote “The mysterious Zylstra Lake Trail was NOT a Land Bank project” and “The Land Bank is completely transparent with their purchases and finances.” Amanda Azous wrote “The Conservation Land Bank did not promote or pursue the Zylstra Lake Trail project”
I write this letter in response to the recent letter by Mark Fishaut MD titled “Moving Forward with the Land Bank”. Dr. Fishaut, I am no longer on the Land Bank Commission but I was for fourteen years. In that fourteen years I have never seen you at a Land Bank meeting, so I question your position of knowledge about what the Land Bank does and how it does it. First of all, the “mysterious” Zylstra Lake trails fiasco has absolutely nothing to do with the Land Bank. You need to address the Town of FH and SJ County on this one. How do you know what the essential matters are? The process and amount of revenue given to the Land Bank cannot be overhauled as it is a state law. This will not change, but rather it will stay the same or it will go away when the public has a chance to vote on it. The transparency of potential purchases is extremely well done and thorough for anyone wanting to pay attention to it. Extreme confidentiality is sometimes required in the early s
Following hard upon the “mysterious” Zylstra Lake trails fiasco, it is timely that review of the entire Land Bank operation has begun. However, it is of concern that the survey available to the public glosses over the most important issues. Goals and directions are important but are irrelevant if they miss the most essential matters: