FOR SALE To the highest bidder?
Two propositions directly affect Daisy Mountain
by Kathleen Stinson

NORTH VALLEY – Anthem, New River and Desert Hills residents fear they could lose their breathtakingly pristine views of Daisy Mountain if they don’t back what they believe to be the best land conservation proposition on the November ballot.

“There is a strong feeling among the residents in Anthem that they want to preserve Daisy Mountain as open space,” said Frank Grimmelmann, chairman of the North Country Conservancy/Daisy Mountain Preserve Effort.

Grimmelmann’s comments to The Desert Advocate came days before Tuesday night’s meeting of area residents at the Anthem Community Center to discuss the pros and cons of Propositions 105 and 106.

An informal poll taken at another recent community meeting indicated preserving Daisy Mountain is a top priority, Grimmelmann related.

“Daisy Mountain is a landmark and a doorway to Phoenix,” said Sara Vannucci, president of the conservancy. “If we don’t do something to get some of the flanks of Daisy Mountain preserved, they will develop up the mountainside.”

Daisy Mountain is located in New River and borders Anthem.

By example, Vannucci said, Black Mountain in Cave Creek and Carefree will be built up because it was not preserved.

Both competing propositions address conservation issues that will affect Daisy Mountain and its chances to achieve permanent status as a preserve. And both measures would also affect the McDowell Sonoran Preserve in Scottsdale and several areas surrounding Cave Creek, including land near the Spur Cross Ranch Conservation Area, Continental Mountain and Maricopa County’s Cave Creek Regional Park.

Sponsors of Prop. 105 claim it opens up the process for portions of state trust land to be set aside as conservation areas. However, conservationists seeking to preserve Daisy Mountain under this proposition would still compete with developers and other applicants for all possible uses.

Prop. 106, on the other hand, would immediately preserve a substantial portion of Daisy Mountain. Both propositions require congressional approval.

According to Ann Hutchinson, vice‑president of the North  Country Conservancy, her group supports Prop 106. She said under Prop. 105, the fact that  conservationists would have to compete with developers is not a secure enough option, given the current development climate in the area. The conservancy prefers Prop 106 because it would  guarantee the preservation of 1,200 acres of Daisy Mountain.

The propositions also differ on the question of who decides what land is preserved.

Under Prop. 105, the Arizona State Land Commission would continue to make those decisions. Under Prop. 106, a seven‑member board of trustees would be created to oversee the land commission. The board would be appointed by the governor.

“The land commission acts as a developer,” Hutchinson said. “Sometimes they disregard the value of open space for recreation and aesthetics–they think like a developer.”

State Rep. Ray Barnes, R‑Carefree, commented last week, “... the thing that kills it for me is that the governor appoints the board of trustees for 106.”

Rep. John D. Nelson, a Republican from Litchfield Park who supports Prop 105, points out that the purpose of state trust land sales is to raise money for education and other government programs. “Prop.106 changes the goal from raising money for the state land trust to conserving land,” he said.

According to Nelson, although the board Prop. 106 would create has to have ties to education, it “changes the mission from education to conservation.”

Preserving Daisy Mountain is important because of its vista and impact on land values, Hutchinson said, citing a 2004 North Country Conservancy study of the effect of open space close to a community. “If houses back up to open space, they are generally more valuable than wall‑to‑wall houses,” she stated.

Prop. 106 would also preserve hiking and equestrian trails from the Maricopa County Regional Trail over Daisy Mountain to the New River Community Park, Hutchinson pointed out.

Prop. 106 alone requires the state to consult local jurisdictions when making preservation decisions. The New River Area Plan, which is a part of the Maricopa Comprehensive Plan, specifically expresses a preference for Daisy Mountain to remain open space.

Key sponsors for Prop. 105 are home builders and ranchers. Backers of  Prop. 106 include the Arizona Education Association and conservation groups, along with recreation and civic organizations.