Menu Contact/Location

Category Archive: Preservation News

  1. Pitt to spend $20M renovating University Club

    Wednesday, December 12, 2007
    By Bill Schackner,
    Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

    The University of Pittsburgh will spend $20.2 million to convert the historic University Club building in Oakland into a faculty club and housing for families traveling to Pittsburgh for life-saving hospital treatment.

    The Pitt trustees’ property and facilities committee, meeting yesterday, outlined planned uses for the eight-story building at 123 University Place that Pitt acquired in 2005.

    The work is among nine renovation and construction projects worth about $67 million approved yesterday.

    Floors one through four will become a 4,000-square-foot faculty club, 4,000-square-foot fitness center, 18,000-square-foot conference center and banquet facility, 4,000-square-foot kitchen facility, coffee shop and 8,000 square feet of offices, Pitt said in a statement.

    The upper floors will be readied for lease to Family House Inc., a nonprofit group offering stays for families of hospital patients being treated for life-threatening conditions.

    Also authorized by the committee yesterday:

    • $2.3 million construction of a Wall Street-type financial analysis laboratory in the Katz graduate business school’s Mervis Hall.

    • A $16.8 million expansion of the Mascaro Sustainability Initiative in the Swanson School of Engineering.

    • A $3.25 million conversion of the former Old Engineering Hall second-floor library into modern laboratories for nanoscience research.

    • A $5.5 million renovation of Chevron Hall’s fourth floor for uses including teaching labs.

    • $4.4 million in improvements to the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing infrastructure for the first floor of Langley Hall.

    • $2.3 million in mechanical systems upgrades to the Victoria Building, which houses the nursing school.

    • $9.8 million for energy-efficient boilers and related equipment to boost capacity at the Carrillo Street steam plant.

    • $2.3 million in electrical and mechanical system upgrades for the university’s computer center at the Regional Industrial Development Corp. park in Blawnox.

    Bill Schackner can be reached at bschackner@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1977.
    First published on December 12, 2007 at 12:00 am

  2. A history of Kennywood

    By The Tribune-Review
    Wednesday, December 12, 2007

    1815: Charles Kenny purchases land that becomes Kennywood to mine coal.

    1860s: Some of the Kenny family’s land, known as “Kenny’s Grove,” becomes a popular picnic area.

    1898: The Monongahela Street Railway Co. leases Kenny’s Grove in order to open a trolley park to encourage people to use the company’s trolley cars. Railway shareholder Andrew Mellon names the park Kennywood in honor of the Kenny family and picnic area.

    1902: Kennywood builds its first roller coaster, the Figure Eight Toboggan.

    1906: Andrew McSwigan, Frederick Henninger and A.F. Megahan form the Pittsburg Kennywood Park Co. and lease Kennywood from Pittsburgh Street Railway Co., which acquired the Monongahela Street Railway Co. Descendants of McSwigan and Henninger remain involved with the park.

    1921: Kennywood’s oldest running roller coaster, the Jack Rabbit, is built. Additional coasters include the Pippin (1924) and the Racer (1927). A swimming pool opens in 1925.

    1926: The Carousel is constructed.

    1930-35: Kennywood survives the Great Depression by bringing in local and national “swing” bands and sponsoring school picnics.

    1936: Kennywood constructs Noah’s Ark, the same year as Pittsburgh’s St. Patrick’s Day flood.

    1950s-70s: With competition from Disney Land and other so-called theme parks, Kennywood grows and adapts, adding such rides as the Rotor, the first ride imported from Europe, the Turnpike and the Thunderbolt, redesigned from the Pippin.

    1981: Kennywood for the first time surpasses the 1 million visitors mark.

    1985: The park adds the Raging Rapids.

    1987: Kennywood is designated a National Historic Landmark by the Department of the Interior, one of two amusements parks nationwide included in the National Register of Historic Places.

    1991: Kennywood adds the Steel Phantom, with a top speed of 80 miles per hour, then the world’s fastest coaster.

    1995: The park’s largest expansion, Lost Kennywood, based on Oakland’s Luna amusement park, is built.

    1999: The indoor roller coaster, the Exterminator, is added.

    2000-01: The Steel Phantom is demolished to make room for the Phantom’s Revenge.

    2005: Kennywood’s owners reveal they’ve acquired about 50 acres, increasing the park’s size to about 140 acres. A $60 million expansion plan, contingent on taxes and completion of the Mon-Fayette Expressway, would include a hotel and indoor water park, to be built across Kennywood Boulevard on the site of a former Kmart.

    2007: Kennywood Entertainment announces agreement to sell its amusement park holdings, including Idlewild & SoakZone in Ligonier and Sandcastle Waterpark in West Homestead, to Parques Reunidos of Madrid.

    Source: Tribune-Review research

  3. Kennywood sale shouldn’t change much

    By Kim Leonard
    TRIBUNE-REVIEW
    Wednesday, December 12, 2007

    A Spanish company’s purchase of local icon Kennywood shouldn’t diminish its low-key charm and may mean more investment in the century-old amusement park in West Mifflin and its sister parks, industry experts say.

    Parques Reunidos of Madrid in March plans to acquire Kennywood, Idlewild & SoakZone, Sandcastle Waterpark and other properties belonging to Kennywood Entertainment of Pittsburgh. Officials announced the deal Tuesday but didn’t disclose a price.

    “There is quite a bit of backing there,” Kennywood spokeswoman Mary Lou Rosemeyer said of Parques Reunidos. But, she said, “we don’t expect them to come right in and build a new roller coaster. We are strong the way we are.”

    Parques Reunidos operates 61 amusement, animal and water parks including the Madrid Zoo, with annual revenue exceeding $570 million and visitors topping 22 million.

    “We have tremendous respect for the work of the Kennywood management team and are delighted to acquire such a quality organization. … We are anxious to continue the gold standard of entertainment they have established,” CEO Richard Golding said in a statement. Company officials could not be reached for further comment.

    The Kennywood properties would be the company’s second U.S. acquisition, Rosemeyer said.

    Parques Reunidos bought Palace Entertainment of Newport Beach, Calif., the nation’s largest water parks and family recreation center operator, for $330 million in October and took ownership of 33 sites, including the Wet ‘N Wild park in Greensboro.

    Parques Reunidos has grown quickly since its acquisition in January by the London-based Candover private equity investment fund for $1.22 billion. Kennywood said the Spanish company approached its owners with an offer as part of a plan to expand its ownership of family entertainment venues worldwide.

    Kennywood Entertainment has been a family business since F.W. Henninger and Andrew McSwigan bought the flagship West Mifflin park, once a picnic area accessible by trolley, from Monongahela Railway Co. in 1906.

    Rosemeyer said the timing was right for a sale. The two controlling families are in their fourth and fifth generations of ownership, with more than 100 shareholders ages 8 months to 80-plus.

    Harry Henninger, Kennywood’s chairman, said the experience visitors expect will continue.

    “Nothing will seem different, even to the folks working at the parks,” he said. “Existing management and staff will remain in place.” The parks have 235 full-time employees, although Kennywood’s work force swells to 1,500 during the operating season.

    “Kennywood is one of the most respected independent operators in the industry,” said Dennis Spiegel, president of consulting firm International Theme Park Services in Cincinnati.

    The amusement park industry has consolidated in the past five years, he said, and Kennywood’s reputation made it attractive to Parques Reunidos.

    One of the biggest deals last year was Sandusky, Ohio-based Cedar Fair LP’s $1.24 billion acquisition of five parks from Paramount Parks. Cedar Fair, operator of Cedar Point park in Sandusky, bought Kings Island near Cincinnati; Kings Dominion near Richmond, Va.; Carowinds, near Charlotte; Canada’s Wonderland in Toronto; and Great America in Santa Clara, Calif.

    Rosemeyer said the Kennywood parks experienced their best summer this year; the three Pennsylvania parks drew more than 2 million visitors.

    Brett Petit, vice president of marketing for Palace Entertainment, said the Kennywood deal might have something to do with the falling U.S. dollar against the stronger euro.

    “It is a great time to buy,” he said, and Palace has been pleased with its acquisition by Parques Reunidos because the company understands the theme park business. “They understand weather issues and guest issues. It would be different if a big bank had bought us.”

    Parques Reunidos has united smaller parks, allowing them to exchange ideas and buy more efficiently. It plans to open rides at several Palace sites next year, Petit said.

    Peter Alexander, a former Disney theme park planner who owns Totally Fun Co. of Tampa, Fla., said American park operators have bought properties overseas for years, and the reverse is happening.

    The announcement took local officials and some of Kennywood’s biggest fans by surprise.

    The sale of any family-owned business is sad, West Mifflin Mayor John Andzelik said. “You wonder what foreign investors are going to come in and do.”

    Bill Linkenheimer of Ross, past national president of the American Coaster Enthusiasts, which held a convention at Kennywood, said he thought the park’s sale eventually would happen.

    “I’ve heard about the Spanish company,” he said, “and from what I understand, they don’t have a standard operating theme. They buy parks and allow them to run somewhat autonomously. Kennywood’s success is the result of being unique.”

    The sale announcement occurred as Kennywood’s corporate officials and West Mifflin leaders were meeting with legislators in Harrisburg about a dispute over the borough’s amusement tax.

    Kennywood, arguing the tax is unfair and targets the park, hasn’t paid it in about 18 months and owes about $1.5 million, Andzelik said.

    Republican state Sen. Robert Regola of Hempfield has introduced a bill to repeal the tax. The Senate Finance Committee is reviewing the bill.

    Staff writers Ron DaParma, Brad Bumsted and Rick Stouffer contributed to this report.

    Kim Leonard can be reached at kleonard@tribweb.com or 412-380-5606.

  4. Salvation Army plans please North Side groups

    By Craig Smith
    TRIBUNE-REVIEW
    Wednesday, December 12, 2007

    Neighborhood groups welcomed the Salvation Army’s decision to build a worship and service center in the North Side and not remodel a Greek Orthodox church.

    “We are pleased that the Salvation Army has decided to reinvest in the North Side community and continue to provide, and even expand, services at their current location,” said Paul Carson, a Mexican War Streets resident who is president of the North Side Neighborhood Coalition.

    The Salvation Army’s plans to convert Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church into a worship and social service center had concerned neighbors who thought a homeless program would be located close to homes, schools and playgrounds.

    “We were getting pressure from the community, but the decision was more dollars and cents,” said Maj. Robert J. Reel, divisional commander. The Salvation Army will raze two buildings it owns on West North Avenue near the closed Garden Theatre and build a center there.

    The church would have required extensive renovations, he said.

    “It makes more sense to build … without making adjustments and trying to retrofit,” Reel said.

    Concerns remain that the North Side is being deluged with social service programs, but community leaders said the neighborhood is poised for an economic infusion.

    The Salvation Army project and plans to renovate the Garden Theatre will help “build up the area,” said Robin Rosemary Miller, president of the North Side/North Shore Chamber of Commerce.

    “There is a lot of money to be invested in this neighborhood,” she said.

    Holy Trinity’s 300-family congregation plans to build a home in McCandless.

    Reel said the Salvation Army’s approximately $4 million project will begin sometime next year.

    Craig Smith can be reached at csmith@tribweb.com or 412-380-5646.

  5. Farmers like option to ‘save’ agriculture

    By Michael Aubele
    VALLEY NEWS DISPATCH
    Sunday, December 2, 2007

    Butler County farmer Ed Thiele said he has no regrets about enlisting in the state’s Farmland Preservation program.

    “I’ve had a lot of people tell me I was foolish for doing it,” he said. “But I did it to preserve the ground. We have to do something to preserve our farmland. We’re losing too much of it.”

    The state paid Thiele $363,432 in 1996 for development rights on his dairy farm in Jefferson and Winfield townships. The easement guarantees the farm remains designated for agricultural use.

    Thiele likely could’ve earned much more by selling his farm, or a portion, to a developer. But he said he has plans to keep the farm working and pass it on to his children.

    The goal of the program is to conserve valuable farmland that can’t be reclaimed once it’s developed, That’s because the soil won’t be suitable for agriculture after it’s been so seriously disturbed.

    Thiele and a few other Butler County farmers said the state’s program has been successful in reaching that goal. “There are always people stopping by, asking if I’ll sell them a portion to build a house or a church,” he said. “I tell them right off the bat that there’s a deed restriction on it.

    “It’s a pretty big decision if you’re going to do it. If you’re going to do it, you’d better make sure it’s the right thing,” Thiele added. “If your goal is to make money, don’t get into the program. If it’s to preserve the land, then do it.”

    Thiele said that once a farmer decides to sell development rights to the state, there’s no turning back.

    “It’s not something you can get into and then get back out of again,” he said. “I’ve heard of cases where people tried to get out by paying back the money plus interest but couldn’t.”

    According to the state Department of Agriculture, there are more than 100 farms in Allegheny, Armstrong, Butler and Westmoreland counties that are protected by the state’s program. About a dozen of those farms are in the Alle-Kiski Valley — the bulk of them in Butler County.

    Agriculture department officials said more than 370,000 acres are preserved in the state, representing about 5 percent of the state’s farmland.

    “Pennsylvania leads the nation in farmland preservation,” said Doug Wolfgang, director for the agriculture department’s Bureau of Farmland Preservation.

    Wolfgang said it is unknown how many of the state’s farms would qualify for the program. The USDA, he said, has classified 7.65 million acres in Pennsylvania as farmland.

    According to the American Farmland Trust, about 150,000 acres in the state have been developed over the last 10 years.

    “Pennsylvania is blessed with a lot of good soil that’s better used in the long run keeping it farmland,” said Jim Baird, American Farmland Trust official. “There is other suitable land available to put buildings on to deal with growth.”

    Ed Goldscheitter, who farms in Buffalo and Clinton townships, agreed and said that’s why he decided to protect his land through the state’s program.

    “For 40 years I’ve been concerned about losing farmland to development and urban sprawl,” he said.

    Goldscheitter has two parcels in the state’s program. He said he intends to pass the property down to family.

    “We’re stewards of the land,” he said. “You just can’t keep putting up housing plans on it and continuing to destroy it. It’s not something we can let disappear because we don’t understand the value of it.

    Goldscheitter said that when he decided to enter his second parcel into the program, he was one of the farmers forced to wait for funding to become available.

    But he declined to say he felt any disappointment at having to wait. He said that’s the nature of the program.

    “It is more difficult to get in now,” he said. “You make the assumption that farmers want to keep their land in the family and continue farming.”

    Goldscheitter said he doubts farmers seek out the program to make money.

    Fellow Butler County farmer Harold Foertsch estimated that he could earn three times as much money by selling his land to a developer than by selling development rights to the state.

    Still, Foertsch said that didn’t dissuade him from applying this year for the program.

    Foertsch farms corn, beans, wheat and potatoes and raises cattle. He said he’s seeking to have 100 acres protected and has been told his farm was accepted although he hasn’t been paid yet.

    Like Thiele and Goldscheitter, Foertsch said his concern is watching good farmland turn into developed property that can’t be returned to agricultural use.

    Farming for Foertsch is a family affair and he said he plans to keep it that way.

    “It’s a way of life,” he said.

    Michael Aubele can be reached at maubele@tribweb.com or 724-226-4673.

  6. Private, public groups encourage farm protections

    By Bob Stiles
    TRIBUNE-REVIEW
    Sunday, December 2, 2007

    Levi Miller’s straw hat and long, white beard moved from side to side as he shook his head at the notion of the Amish accepting government money to preserve farmland.
    “I don’t think any of our people would go for that,” said Miller, 80, of Smicksburg, Indiana County, who has farmed for more than 50 years. “They don’t take pay for something they don’t do.”

    Amish farmers in the counties of Indiana, Somerset or Lawrence — areas with large Amish settlements — don’t participate in farmland preservation programs, according to preservation officials in those communities. But in Eastern Pennsylvania, Amish in fast-growing counties such as Lancaster and Chester have come to realize that preservation programs may be the best way to preserve farmland.

    “I think part of it is, in southeastern Pennsylvania, it’s right in your face,” said Matt Knepper, director of Lancaster County’s farmland preservation program. “The conversion of farmland to other uses, we see it every day.”

    With the preservation program, a farmer sells the right to develop the property, and receives a set amount of money per acre in exchange for keeping the land in agriculture. The amount varies from county to county, based on real estate values and the money available, agriculture officials said.
    There has been less of a push with the farm preservation program in southwestern Pennsylvania than in eastern counties, where development is more rapid. The Amish in Western Pennsylvania also tend to be more conservative than those in the southeast, Kraybill said.

    “They won’t accept any money from the government,” said Susan Moon, assistant manager of Somerset County’s conservation district.

    Pennsylvania’s Amish population of about 48,600 ranks second to Ohio’s nearly 55,000 Amish residents, according to the Young Center for Anabaptist and Pietist Studies at Elizabethtown College in Lancaster County. Amish settlements in Lancaster County, Indiana County and the New Wilmington region of Lawrence County are among the largest in the country, according to the college’s Web site.

    Pennsylvania ranks No. 1 in the nation in farmland preservation, according to the American Farmland Trust. About $536 million has been spent through the state’s conservation easement program, preserving 344,465 acres and nearly 3,050 farms.

    Knepper said time, more liberal thinking among some Amish religious leaders and a better understanding of the purpose of the money were factors in getting the Amish involved.

    Betty Reefer, of Westmoreland County’s agriculture preservation program, said that’s helped encourage Amish participation.

    “In the beginning in Lancaster County, it was very tough getting them involved in farmland preservation because it involved the government, but they were able to convince them it fit into their lifestyle, and it caught on,” she said.

    Of the 694 farms preserved through the Lancaster County program, about 25 involve Amish farmers, Knepper said. Most of those became involved in the program within the last three years, he said.

    Karen Martynick, executive director of the nonprofit Lancaster County Farmland Trust, said about 60 percent of the 273 farms preserved through the trust, or approximately 165 farms, involve the Amish.

    She said her group’s use of private money appealed to more Amish than the government-funded preservation program, even though the Trust is paying about $800 per acre compared to the $3,000 to $4,000 per acre typically paid through the state-county preservation program.

    “They see changes on the horizon, and they see more and more young people going off the farms,” Martynick said. “They want to see it stay in agriculture.”

    The trust began accepting government funding in 2005. Martynick said that money isn’t used to preserve Amish properties if the Amish object.

    Henry Beiler, an Amish farmer in Lancaster County who participates in the preservation program, said many Amish farmers didn’t understand how they could receive money for something they couldn’t see.

    Donald Kraybill, professor of sociology at Elizabethtown College and a noted Amish scholar, said the Amish reluctance to participate with the government stems from an age-old conviction.

    “In general, they’ve always drawn a line between the church and the state,” he said.

    They don’t take out insurance policies, Kraybill added, because “they feel the church should take care of its members and its people.”

    About 20 Amish farms are included in the more than 200 farms preserved through Chester County’s open space and farmland-preservation programs, said Bill Gladden, director of the county’s open space program.

    He said efforts of public and private groups have met with the Amish and that has made a big difference.

    A farmland-preservation arm of the private Brandywine Conservancy was formed a few months ago, and Patrick Fasano of the conservancy said two Amish farms have been preserved so far through the conservancy’s efforts.

    Bob Stiles can be reached at bstiles@tribweb.com or 724-836-6622.

  7. Farmers line up to preserve land for agriculture

    By Michael Aubele
    VALLEY NEWS DISPATCH
    Sunday, December 2, 2007

    Pennsylvania’s Farmland Preservation program arguably is the leading program of its kind in the country in terms of money spent on protecting land and acres acquired.
    Since creating the program in 1988, the state has invested roughly $1 billion in purchasing development rights — known as easements — from farmers who want to ensure their land remains dedicated to agricultural use.

    But even with the vast amount of money being spent on easements and success of conservation efforts, many interested farmers find themselves being told they have to wait for a chance to participate.

    While the state has preserved more than 3,300 farms, about 2,000 farmers have their names on a program waiting list, according to the Department of Agriculture.

    Meanwhile, the state ranks sixth among those losing farms to development most rapidly.
    Agricultural experts say even though Pennsylvania’s farm preservation efforts could be considered a model program, more funding is needed to prevent prime farming land from being converted to housing, commercial or industrial developments.

    State leaders say finding additional funding might will be difficult and that there’s no guarantee throwing more money at the program will make it more successful.

    “It is the nation’s leader, unquestioned,” Jim Baird, an official with the American Farmland Trust, said about Pennsylvania’s program. “But there really is more that needs to be done.

    “The development pressure that is out there still is looming.”

    The Trust, a nonprofit created in 1980, is lobbying Congress to allocate more money to farmland preservation and was involved in helping Pennsylvania create its preservation program.

    The federal government spends money on protecting farms through the Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program. But Baird said the bulk of money being spent on farmland protection is done at the state and county levels.

    Farmers who enter the program voluntarily sell development rights to the state, which guarantees that the farms remain agricultural land. This is “for perpetuity,” according to the state’s agriculture department.

    Through Pennsylvania’s program, easements are purchased from farmers through state, county or local dollars or a combination.

    Farmers interested in the program apply through the county. They must meet criteria, such as soil type, acreage and location.

    The program is competitive. Farms are ranked and then offers are made by the county through an appraisal process. Final approval comes from the state.

    As for the farmers waiting for a chance to participate in the program, state and county officials said they keep confidential the names on the program waiting list.

    The backlog, state officials said, is an indication of how well the program is working.

    “The key to Pennsylvania’s success has been farmers’ willingness to participate,” said Doug Wolfgang, director of the agriculture department’s Bureau of Farmland Preservation.

    State Sen. Jim Ferlo, D-Highland Park, said the state spent a record $102 million on easements last year when Growing Greener II was approved. In 2005, he said, the state spent from $35 million to $40 million on the program.

    “That boost saved an awful lot of farm acreage that otherwise wouldn’t have been funded,” Ferlo said.

    The state appropriated $40 million for this year, said Betty Reefer, Westmoreland County farm preservation administrator.

    But, Reefer expects the appropriation to drop to about $34 million for next year.

    “Whether or not there will be another effort for conservation that might be in the early stages of debate, I don’t know,” she said. “I’m thinking there will be a slight decrease in next year’s appropriation, but it’s not until February that the state announces what the appropriation will be.”

    “It is likely to be less than this year’s allocation because the Growing Greener II bond monies have been obligated,” Wolfgang said.

    Reefer said she’d like to see more money allocated because her county can only protect about 10 percent of the farms on her waiting list each year.

    “The most applications we’ve gotten in one year was 65,” she said. “And in one year, the most we can protect is maybe five farms.

    “We just don’t have the adequate funding to move ahead with it. I wish we had enough dollars to protect the farms of all the farmers that apply.”

    She said some farms have been on the county’s waiting list for as long as 10 years.

    “That shows that the level of dedication among farmers is very strong,” she said. “I’m sure there were opportunities that might have come along to subdivide or sell part of their farms.”

    Reefer said now is the time to dedicate the funding to protecting those farms.

    State Rep. John Pallone, D-New Kensington, sees it differently, however. While an ardent supporter of the program, he doesn’t believe that pumping more money into the program is the answer.

    “The intent of the program is being met, based on my knowledge of it,” he said. “I think we’re meeting our goals, and I don’t know that throwing more money at the program will make it any better.”

    Pallone suggested the state might be on the tail end of farms that would qualify for a preservation easement.

    “It becomes a matter of whether or not it would be prudent to preserve these lands,” he said. “Obviously, we want to preserve as much green space as possible and as much farm land as we can,” he said. “But, and I say this with reservation, I don’t know that we should preserve 100 percent of our farmland. If we continue to do things at a reasonable pace, we can implement reasonable controls on development.”

    Pallone said that, at the county level, officials are working diligently to review the applications and that throwing more money at the program could jeopardize how thorough the review process is.

    Ferlo said that, at some point, the state might revisit how it funds its farm preservation program but that, right now, it’s not being discussed.

    “We have to deal with the hand we’ve been dealt,” he said. “There are so many competing needs out there, such as infrastructure. I want to fund all of these programs, but it’s a question of whether or not the Legislature has the appetite for binding debt.”

    HOW THE PROGRAM WORKS

    The state’s Farmland Preservation program was developed in 1988 to help slow the loss of prime farmland to nonagricultural uses. The program enables state, county and local governments to purchase conservation easements (sometimes called development rights) from owners of quality farmland. Counties participating in the program have appointed agricultural land preservation boards with a state board created to oversee this program. The state board is responsible for distribution of state funds, approval and monitoring of county programs and specific easement purchases.

    Eligible farms must be part of an Agricultural Security Area (ASA), which is a designation made at the local level based on several criteria. In addition to being part of an ASA, the farm is rated against other eligible parcels according to the following criteria:

    • Quality of the farmland. State regulations require that easements be purchased for farms containing 50 acres or more. Parcels as small as 10 acres may be preserved if adjacent to existing preserved farmland or used for the production of crops unique to the area. At least half the tract must either be harvested cropland, pasture or grazing land and it must contain soil that meets the state’s quality criteria .

    • Stewardship. Farms are rated on the use of good conservation practices and best management practices of soil nutrients and control of soil erosion and sedimentation.

    • Likelihood of Conversion. Easements offered for sale to counties will be scored and ranked for acquisition based on a variety of factors, including proximity of farm to sewer and water lines; extent and type of nonagricultural uses nearby; amount and type of agricultural use in the vicinity; amount of other preserved farmland in close proximity.

    Farmers can receive the proceeds from easement sales in a lump sum payment, installments up to five years, or on a long-term installment basis. Many farmers use the proceeds from easement sales to reduce debt loads, expand operations, and as a way to pass on farms to the next generation.

    Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture

    COMPETING WITH DEVELOPMENT

    According to American Farmland Trust, Pennsylvania ranks sixth in the country among states losing prime farmland to development. Here’s a look at the top 10.

    1. Texas

    2. Ohio

    3. Georgia

    4. North Carolina

    5. Illinois

    6. Pennsylvania

    7. Indiana

    8. Tennessee

    9. Michigan

    10. Alabama

    Michael Aubele can be reached at maubele@tribweb.com or 724-226-4673.

  8. 8th District Congressman Introduced and Worked to Extend Tax Incentives for Conservation Easements for One Year

    By Heritage Conservancy
    November 26, 2007

    (Doylestown, PA) – Pennsylvania Congressman Patrick Murphy (D-8th District) was joined by members of Heritage Conservancy Monday, November 19, 2007, to tout bipartisan legislation that provides tax credits for property owners who preserve their land from development. Legislation introduced by Congressman Murphy was incorporated and passed by the House last week. The measure would extend a provision in the federal tax code that provides deductions to those who place land into a conservation easement. This would encourage landowners to make the difficult, but admirable, choice of preserving their land. Developers are willing to pay vast amounts for prime real estate in places like rural Bucks County. By choosing not to sell, landowners forfeit a large buy-out to protect the integrity of their land. The provision—which is set to expire at the end of this year—was included in a package of tax cuts that include Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) relief and other popular tax provisions that were set to expire this year.

    The provision would allow landowners to deduct the fair market value on qualified conservation easements. Such deductions are capped at 50 percent of income, with farmers and ranchers eligible to claim 100 percent. The carry forward period for the deductions is 15 years.

    “Farmers and other landowners give up a big pay day when they choose not to sell to developers. My bipartisan bill would reward landowners for doing the right thing and for making our community even more beautiful,” said Congressman Patrick Murphy. “We need to make it easier for farmers to keep their farms and for property owners to permanently protect the rural character of their land. This legislation extends important tax cuts that make these tough choices just a little bit easier.”

    “This legislation puts us on the path to permanent tax incentives, which is what 8th District families really need,” Murphy added.

    Heritage Conservancy has identified property owners across Bucks County that would benefit from the tax incentives. “The preservation of many valuable properties could be jeopardized if these tax incentives expire,” according to Jeff Marshall, Vice President for Resource Protection at Heritage Conservancy. “This could have an effect on hundreds of acres of potential open space.”

    “It is clear that Congressman Murphy’s ideal preference is permanent and expanded tax incentives for qualified conservation easements. We applaud and welcome his efforts in the interim to take practical steps toward an extension,” said Clifford C. David, Jr., Heritage Conservancy President. “Patrick Murphy has taken a leadership position on an issue important to the conservation community by extending these tax incentives; we see a clear benefit to the residents of Bucks County.”

Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation

100 West Station Square Drive, Suite 450

Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Phone: 412-471-5808  |  Fax: 412-471-1633