>La Grande Observer | Union and Wallowa Counties' News Leader

More than two years ago a diverse group of recreationists went public with a conceptual plan that had the potential to put 3,700 acres of private forest lands on Mount Emily into public ownership and management. The group had been meeting with representatives of Forest Capital Partners, the timber management company that purchased a large chunk of Boise Cascade’s timber holdings, to see if a purchase could be arranged.

About two years ago the Mt. Emily Recreation Coalition announced publicly what it was working toward. The group wanted to somehow find a way to purchase the popular recreational and timber lands so that they would remain accessible to the variety of interests that use the area — everything from ATVers to hikers, horseback riders and mountain bikers, as well as provide a sustainable timber resource.

The coalition has worked hard to come up with a couple of proposals for purchase of the land. Both scenarios, though, would require county participation through the formation of a Community Forest Authority in order to qualify for a variety of grant funds that would likely be available. The value of the timber would provide the bulk of leverage for ensuring the recreation/timber area’s financial success and would not bind the county financially.

The need for the involvement of Union County in the purchase has spurred concern among some residents. Questions have been raised about whether the county, with its involvement in both Buffalo Peak Golf Course and the Wallowa Union Railroad, can take another risk; about management issues in terms of recreation and timber; about related costs such as road maintenance.

Questions need to be asked. And they need to be answered. A $7.9 million public purchase (or $4.6 million depending on the scenario) is significant, even if it appears that the assets are such that the county would never be threatened with having to bear the cost.

The issue of putting the matter to a vote has also surfaced. Frankly, doing so in this case makes sense.

The Observer editorial board isn’t a big proponent of taking every controversial issue to voters. We elect leaders to make decisions for us. That’s what a representative government is all about. But a $7.9 million purchase, even one leveraged by timber assets and grants, is worthy of a vote.

Let the facts of the case play out in the weeks leading up to the May 20 primary. Let the voters weigh in. There’s still time to get such a measure on the May 20 ballot. A referendum on the issue would let everyone know where the public  stands. The county could then act accordingly.