Local opinion: What are we giving up?

For more than three decades, my work in housing, community development, historic preservation and Southern Arizona neighborhoods taught me something that sounds simple but is too often forgotten when government makes decisions about land:

Land is never just land.

Land carries our history. It holds our water and natural resources. It is where we build homes, create jobs and grow communities. It can also hold sacred places, archaeological resources and pieces of our culture that, once lost, cannot be replaced.

Recent discussions at the Arizona Legislature have caused me to think more deeply about how we make these decisions.

I serve on the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. Last December, JLAC heard from the Arizona Auditor General and State Land Department regarding the Department’s sunset review. The Auditor General raised concerns, including the Department’s lack of required long-range plans for State Trust Land.

Then, on Sept. 29, the Legislature’s new Joint Legislative Ad Hoc Committee on State Land Oversight questioned the Department about data centers, plans for disposing of Trust Land, commissioner-initiated sales, application backlogs, licensing, solar farms and other issues.

Legislative oversight is important. We should expect transparency, efficiency and accountability from our state agencies. But as I listened to these discussions, I kept coming back to a larger question:

As pressure grows to develop and sell State Trust Land, what principles should guide us before we make decisions that cannot be undone?

Arizona has approximately 9.2 million acres of State Trust Land, about 8 million of which benefit K-12 public education. These lands are not the same as parks or other public lands. They are held in trust for specific beneficiaries, and the Department has a responsibility to generate value for them.

I take that responsibility seriously.

But generating long-term value should not simply mean selling land faster. Nor should we legislate in advance which private use represents the highest and best use before fully understanding alternatives and consequences.

Also, we cannot talk about Arizona land without acknowledging the history and experiences of Tribal Nations.

The continuing fight over Oak Flat, a place sacred to Western Apache people, is a painful reminder of what is at stake when government decisions affect land with deep religious, cultural and historical meaning.

Whatever one’s position on that project, Oak Flat asks us all to consider a fundamental question: How do we measure the value of land?

Economic value matters. Jobs, housing and infrastructure matter. But so do water, our environment, Tribal sovereignty, sacred and archaeological sites, historic neighborhoods and the cultural landscapes that tell the story of who we are.

Environmental justice matters too.

In Southern Arizona, we know that the benefits and burdens of development have not always been shared equally. Some communities have benefited from growth while others have lived for generations with pollution, depleted resources and decisions they had little voice in making.

That is why we should ask a simple question whenever government considers a major land decision:

Who will benefit, and who will live with the consequences?

Going forward, I want a stronger, more transparent process for decisions involving State Trust and other government lands.

We should know who benefits and who has been consulted. We should understand the long-term value of the land and what alternatives were considered. We should look carefully at water and environmental impacts. We should identify Tribal, archaeological, historic and cultural resources before decisions are made. And communities should have meaningful opportunities to be heard while their voices can still make a difference.

This is not about stopping economic development, mining, housing, renewable energy or other productive uses of land. It is about good government and responsible stewardship.

Arizona is growing, and the pressure on our land only increasing. This is the time to establish principles that will endure beyond one bill, legislature, administration or development.

We have a responsibility not only to Arizonans today, but to those who come after us.

Before making decisions that cannot be undone, we should understand not only what Arizona stands to gain, but what are we giving up tomorrow?