“More BigCharts Virtual Stock Exchange WSJ Asia WSJ Europe WSJ Portuguese WSJ Spanish WSJ Chinese WSJ Japanese WSJ Radio Financial News WSJ Lifestyle Brands WSJwine SEARCH Choose a topic to search news: Saturday, October 2, 2010New York61º| 52ºThe Wall Street Journal Real Estate Welcome, Logout My Account My Journal Help Message Center ( new) U.S. Edition Home ↓ More WSJ.com is available in the following editions and languages: U.S. Asia India China Japan Europe Americas en Español em Português Register for FREE Register for FREEThank you for registering. We sent an email to: Please click on the link inside the email to complete your registration Please register to gain free access to WSJ tools. An account already exists for the email address entered. Forgot your username or password? This service is temporary unavailable due to system maintenance. Please try again later. The username entered is already associated with another account. Please enter a different username The email address you have entered is already in use. Please re-enter the email address. First Name Last Name Email (your email address will be your login) Confirm Email Create a Password Confirm Password Company Size (Optional) Please make a selection 1-99 100-499 500-999 1,000-2,499 2,500-4,999 5,000-9,999 10,000-14,999 15,000-24,999 25,000+ Not Applicable From time to time, we will send you e-mail announcements on new features and special offers from The Wall Street Journal Online. Create a profile for me in the Journal Community Why Register? Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions As a registered user of The Wall Street Journal Online, you will be able to: Setup and manage your portfolio Personalize your own news page Receive and manage newsletters Login/Register to set your edition Today's Paper Video Blogs Journal Community Log In Log In Login Password Log in Your login is either a username or an email address. Keep me logged in. Forgot your password? World » More World » More Loading… U.S. » More U.S. » More Loading… New York » More New York » More Loading… Business » More Business » More Loading… Markets » More Markets » More Loading… Tech » More Tech » More Loading… Personal Finance » More Personal Finance » More Loading… Life & Culture » More Life & Culture » More Loading… Opinion » More Opinion » More Loading… Careers » More Careers » More Loading… Real Estate » More Real Estate » More Loading… Small Business » More Small Business » More Loading… Buying & Selling House of the Day Second Homes Home & Garden Developments Blog Commercial Property Search CloseDow Jones Reprints: This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers, use the Order Reprints tool at the bottom of any article or visit www.djreprints.com See a sample reprint in PDF format. Order a reprint of this article now REAL ESTATE OCTOBER 2, 2010 'The Buzzard of Backcountry' Strikes It Rich in National Parks Article Slideshow Comments (37) more in Real Estate Main »Email Print Save This ↓ More Twitter Digg + More close Yahoo! Buzz MySpace del.icio.us Reddit Facebook LinkedIn Fark Viadeo Orkut Text By STEPHANIE SIMON Matt McClain for The Wall Street Journal Thomas Chapman built a luxury home inside Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park to make a point: Unless the federal government is willing to pay top dollar to preserve the land, they have no claim on it. MONTROSE, Colo.—The luxury home that Thomas Chapman built on the lip of the magnificent Black Canyon here isn't just an investment. It's a provocation. Mr. Chapman, a small-town real-estate broker, has made a controversial career trading scattered parcels of private land that sit inside national forests and national parks. On behalf of his clients or his business partners, he talks up plans to develop the parcels: a subdivision at a scenic overlook, an RV park on a canyon rim, a rustic estate inside a remote wilderness area. Sometimes he even brings out the bulldozers. Environmentalists sound the alarm. And often, the government or conservationists come with money or a land swap to buy him out, saving the cherished parcel from development—and making Mr. Chapman money. Photos: A Home on the Range View Slideshow Matt McClain for The Wall Street Journal The master bathroom in Casa Barranca Now, as the Obama Administration launches a "Great Outdoors Initiative" aimed at expanding protection of America's scenic spots, Mr. Chapman has made his boldest move yet. He and his business partners bought a 112-acre parcel within the boundaries of Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park in rugged western Colorado. They spent $240,000 for land the federal government had recently appraised at $175,000. When no conservationists stepped forward to buy the land, Mr. Chapman raised the ante: He built a 4,800-square-foot home on the canyon rim, which he has put on the market for $13 million, helicopter included. And he sold off a second home site—on higher ground, with even more spectacular views—for $2.1 million. With that, Mr. Chapman aims to make a point: Environmentalists and park managers can wring their hands about development tearing up the wild, but unless they're willing to spend top dollar to preserve that land, they have no claim on it. And if they won't buy it, he's perfectly willing to develop it as a private playground for a wealthy buyer. Some investors who own their own parcels within federal lands—and hold on to them, sometimes for generations, in hopes of one day mining, logging or developing them—are uncomfortable with Mr. Chapman's aggressive tactics. But his muscular assertion of landowner rights is resonating in the West these days, as landowners warily await the administration's next move. In his first year in office, President Barack Obama signed the most sweeping public-lands bill in a decade, creating three national parks and protecting 1,000 miles of rivers by listing them as "wild and scenic." View Full Image The administration is now pushing to set aside $900 million a year for land purchases and conservation, up from $143 million in 2007. A bill to that effect has already passed the House and is pending in the Senate. There are more than 4 million privately held acres within the national park system alone—legacies of 19th-century homesteading and mining claims. Conservation groups would like to use the federal funds to purchase as many as possible, to prevent development that could disrupt wildlife habitat and mar scenic views. But an Interior Department memo leaked earlier this year also identified vast tracts of additional land that the president could protect by designating them national monuments. The list of 14 sites includes sand dunes in New Mexico, a rock dome in south-central Utah and the grasslands of northern Montana. The administration says that was a brainstorming memo and no specific plans are in the works. But that hasn't reduced the alarm. Afraid that federal protection will trample private-property rights and prevent development, congressmen from seven Western states have introduced bills that would limit the president's power to establish national monuments in their states. And the American Land Rights Association, a group that claims 20,000 members, has been sending out dire warnings by email urging landowners to stand up to "Obama and his land grab crowd." Noting that the federal government already owns nearly one out of every three acres in the U.S., Congressman Rob Bishop, a Utah Republican, says he finds it "frightening" that the administration wants to lay claim to more. "These people in their air-conditioned offices in Washington, D.C., still think of the West as nothing more than backdrop scenery for a John Wayne western," Mr. Bishop says. But to those in the West, he adds, land is livelihood. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, himself a rancher, has no intention of extending federal control or environmental protections over more land without first listening to locals and building consensus, says Kendra Barkoff, a spokeswoman. "He wants to do what's best for the communities and what's best for the land," she says. As for complaints that government appraisals underestimate the value of private property, "some of that may be valid," but in other cases "the problem is the landowners have wildly inflated ideas of the value," says Ron Tipton, a senior vice president with the National Parks Conservation Association, an independent group that advocates for federal lands. Plus, he says, the government uses taxpayer money to buy land, so as a matter of fiscal prudence, "we should be paying the least we can." Mr. Chapman isn't against conservation. A skilled nature photographer, he says he wants the government to continue to protect beautiful sites that were "given to us by a higher power." But he vehemently objects to the implication that because these lands are so special, those who hold them have an obligation to turn them over to the public on the cheap. Federal appraisals often put a low value on such parcels, on the grounds that they can be used for little more than grazing, hunting or admiring the view. Mr. Chapman has devoted a quarter-century to demonstrating that even the most unlikely spots can be developed—and thus may be worth far more. A lanky 60-year-old with a laid-back manner, Mr. Chapman first jumped into land-use disputes in 1984 on behalf of his friend Richard Mott. Mr. Mott owned 4,200 acres on the north rim of the Black Canyon, a spectacularly steep, rocky plunge that was at the time a national monument and is now a national park. The National Park Service wanted Mr. Mott's land to protect the canyon views. The agency offered him less than $250 an acre, based on an appraisal that valued the land as a ranch for grazing livestock. To prove the land was worth more, Mr. Chapman, acting as an adviser to Mr. Mott, filed a subdivision plan and announced his intention to build 132 luxury homes. In a made-for-TV moment, he then brought in a massive Caterpillar D9 bulldozer. "It has a very bad sound," Mr. Chapman says with a grin. "It's a very big machine." Environmental groups, horrified, demanded the land be saved. Mr. Mott said he would sell—but set his price at about $700 an acre, nearly triple the park service's offer. Negotiations broke down and Mr. Mott sued in federal court. After reviewing testimony, the judge nudged the sides toward middle ground and the sale went through for about $500 an acre, twice the opening offer. Mr. Chapman had found his calling. "I consider myself a landowner advocate," he says. "I don't like the career bureaucrats sitting in their marble palaces, writing letters saying, 'This is what you will take for your land.'" He takes particular delight in pointing out what he calls the "hypocrisy" of the environmental community, which often puts pressure on the federal government to buy up private property in or adjacent to federal lands to save it from development: The lands they covet, he says, cannot be both "'priced too high' and a 'national treasure' at the same time." Yes, they can, responds Hilary White, who directs the Sheep Mountain Alliance, a Colorado conservation group. "We certainly place a high value on our sensitive habitat," she says. "That doesn't necessarily mean we scramble every time there's a threat of development to raise as much money as we can to throw at a greedy landowner." "Greedy" isn't the worst adjective tossed at Mr. Chapman. Over the years, environmental activists have also called him an extortionist, a profiteer and "the buzzard of the backcountry." Even some fellow private property advocates are uneasy with his tactics, which he has likened—proudly—to chucking a 10-ton boulder in a placid lake. They see him as too showy and confrontational. For their part, federal officials say it's frustrating and often fruitless to work with Mr. Chapman. "Usually when you do a negotiation, you move toward the middle, but every time we made an offer, he would double or triple the price," said Dave Roberts, a park-service official, referring to Mr. Chapman's land in Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park. Mr. Chapman says there were no real negotiations—only low-ball offers and the threat of condemnation if he wouldn't agree. Because they're using the public purse, federal agencies cannot by law pay more for land than fair-market value, as determined by appraisals. But accurately appraising remote and undeveloped lands can be a tricky business, and Mr. Chapman has sometimes proved a cannier judge of value than the federal government. In 1993, he and some partners began building a luxury home on a parcel they bought inside the West Elk wilderness area within Gunnison National Forest. There were no roads to it, and motorized access through the wilderness is prohibited. So, Mr. Chapman ferried in logs by helicopter. As the structure rose, so did pressure on the Forest Service to stop him. Federal land managers offered to trade a parcel of public land outside the tony resort of Telluride for the West Elk wilderness-turned-construction-site. A federal appraiser said the deal was fair, valuing both properties at $639,000. Mr. Chapman agreed to the swap. As part of the deal, he torched his half-built home and seeded the ground with native grasses. Less than two years later, he and his partners sold their newly acquired Telluride land for $4.2 million—more than six times what federal appraisers had said it was worth. Even accounting for the money Mr. Chapman's team spent building and burning the home in the wilderness, they made a tidy profit. Other acts of brinksmanship followed. In the mid-1990s, Mr. Chapman spent a year visiting county courthouses across Colorado, researching land titles. He found more than 300 privately owned parcels within national wilderness areas and pored over maps and photos to find the most desirable lots for fishing, hunting and building. Mr. Chapman ended up buying 18 of the top 25 lots on his list—"the best of the best," he says—for an investment firm now known as TDX. In lieu of commission and fees, he took a 23% stake in TDX. Mr. Chapman then printed up a glossy brochure offering the properties for sale, at prices from $25,000 to $9.6 million. He touted some as perfect sites for ski huts or hunting lodges and described others as excellent trade bait, since the lands contained rare habitats coveted by federal agencies. No one bit for years. TDX sat back and waited. Then, in 2006, Colorado businessman Mark Young bought all 18 wilderness parcels for a total of $1 million. Mr. Young began a small building project on one parcel and moved to block development on several others by setting up a type of deed restriction known as a "conservation easement." In a common maneuver, Mr. Young then transferred the easements to a nonprofit environmental group in return for substantial tax credits. To get the credits, Mr. Young needed fresh appraisals—and the results were eye-popping. A parcel Mr. Young bought for $65,000 was valued 14 months later at $816,000. A parcel he spent $190,000 on was appraised at $955,000, according to his attorney. Mr. Chapman, face crinkling with delight, says the appraisals prove his point: Land is valuable, even, or perhaps especially, when it's located in the midst of a federally protected landscape. Mr. Chapman says he and TDX made a paltry profit on the wilderness parcels—about $200,000. But he may get another shot. Mr. Young has defaulted on his mortgage and is unable to pay, according to his lawyer, David Masters. TDX and Mr. Chapman are moving to foreclose on the land and void the conservation easements, so they can again market the properties as luxury-home sites. Mr. Young has filed a countersuit alleging that Mr. Chapman tricked him into buying the land to secure tax benefits, then refused to help him secure those benefits. Mr. Chapman denies the allegations. These days, Mr. Chapman has turned his attention to marketing Casa Barranca, the striking home he built inside Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park. The home, accessible by road or helicopter, exudes a quiet elegance, with stone floors, copper sinks and handcrafted showers. But Mr. Chapman expects that wealthy buyers would consider it too small and use it as a guest house. He envisions them building a more spacious mansion on an adjacent private parcel—78 acres high atop a bluff, with panoramic views. Mr. Chapman says he would prefer to see the bluff-top parcel preserved as wild emptiness. But he's not willing to turn it over to the park service or put a conservation easement on the land that would protect it from development. He bought it to make money off it—and, in fact, recently sold it to a Maine investor for $2.1 million. That investor has no plans to build. But the sale contract stipulates that Mr. Chapman can buy back the parcel, for $3.1 million, at any time in the next two years. He'd buy it back to develop it, or to resell it to the eventual owner of Casa Barranca. He's a capitalist, he says. And he makes no apologies for what he does. "You buy things because you think they're good value," Mr. Chapman says. "And because you think you can sell them for more." ”
