Last week, the Island County commissioners’ Republican majority informally agreed that a funding program designed specifically to preserve land deemed too valuable for development needs criteria that would weigh possible economic losses of future purchases.

The Conservation Futures fund, as it’s commonly known, isn’t perfect and may indeed need some revision, but the board should consider this proposal carefully. This taxing program, which is outlined in state statute, is about preservation, not economics, and confusing the two seems contrary to the legislation’s intent.

“The legislature finds that the haphazard growth and spread of urban development is encroaching upon, or eliminating, numerous open areas and spaces of varied size and character, including many devoted to agriculture, the cultivation of timber, and other productive activities, and many others having significant recreational, social, scenic, or esthetic values. Such areas and spaces, if preserved and maintained in their present open state, would constitute important assets to existing and impending urban and metropolitan development, at the same time that they would continue to contribute to the welfare and well-being of the citizens of the state as a whole,” — RCW 84.34.200.

This program has long been a sore spot for island conservatives. Some argue that property preservation is a luxury that shouldn’t be indulged at a time when the county is struggling to fund basic services, such as law and justice. Others note that more land has been purchased than can be maintained, and indeed the county is struggling with what it has, even handing off stewardship of some properties to other public agencies. And some complain that continually “saving” areas that are precious only to a select few removes valuable property from tax rolls.

Perhaps additional wisdom is needed when it comes to Conservation Futures purchases, but considering the economic loss of lands is a hard sell when it comes to preservation — the two simply don’t go hand in hand. If they did, wonders like Central Park in New York City, likely some of the most valuable commercial real estate in the world, probably wouldn’t exist. Greenbank Farm would be a neighborhood or shopping mall, and perhaps Double Bluff beach park would be a string of waterfront shops.

The point is, the properties that need preservation the most are often, by their very nature, the most valuable.

It’s difficult to see the wisdom of adding criteria that would weaken the very backbone of what the Conservation Futures fund is all about.