Posted on 05/09/2002 4:03:36 AM PDT by sauropod
By: Nerissa Young, Register-Herald Reporter May 08, 2002
HINTON - State highway officials said the same thing Tuesday they said 16 months ago - property to construct the New River Parkway will come from willing sellers and the highway will follow the existing road path. Yet, opponents who termed the whole project a "federal land grab" didn't seem too happy they had won.
A group of flag-emblazoned blue T-shirt-clad women calling themselves the Sisters of the River asked highway officials to abandon the workshop format for the supplemental draft environmental impact statement to host a question and answer session. The women said they keep getting different answers to their questions.
Tom Smith from the Federal Highway Administration's Charleston office urged the women to ask their questions of the appropriate expert and then tell him the answers they got. He pledged he would answer their questions, but kept the meeting in a workshop format so others could visit stations and ask specific environmental and property questions.
The Legislature created the New River Parkway Authority in 1985 to design and construct a low-speed scenic highway connecting Interstates 64 and 77 via Hinton. The northern extension has gone back to the drawing board three times for environmental impact statements to meet property owners' and federal agencies' concerns. The routing of the highway varied between upgrading W.Va. 20 on the Summers County side or County Route 26 on the Raleigh County side.
Once the state Division of Highways announced Route 26 as the preferred corridor, it also announced its intention to acquire all of the land between the road and the river to meet federal agency concerns about scenic and environmental effects of private property development. That prompted life-long residents and seasonal visitors, who wanted Route 26 improved, to call the project a "land grab."
DOH spokesman Norse Angus said the first designs on the northern extension were in 1988. Despite the controversy, the project remains in its budget of $60 million. About $5 million has been spent on designs and studies, which is consistent for the project size. He noted construction of the Appalachian Corridor highways through the state has taken a similar amount of time.
The road will be built, he said. "There's a legitimate purpose and need for the project." Because the road lies within the New River Gorge National Gorge, it offers access to the area. The road's benefits include recreation, economic improvement and safety.
"An overwhelming number of people support the project in one form or another."
Eighty percent of the land on Route 26 is owned by public agencies. In response to property owners' concerns, he said, his agency will recommend no further land acquisition, except from willing owners. The state will own the property it acquires and will maintain the road. "There will be no net gain for the National Park Service."
Sheila Davis, one of the Sisters of the River, said the supplemental environmental is "bogus." She was angry NPS officials did not attend the meeting. Although the NPS claims the road is not its project, it gives money to the parkway authority for studies.
Richard Gunnoe, a member of the parkway authority board, said, "We're not in favor of taking anyone's property that's not needed for the road."
Hinton Mayor Cleo Mathews said the road's construction is vital "to keep the lights on in Hinton." Travelers on the scenic highway can turn left into the city's historic and shopping districts. "If we can get them to the end of that bridge (Temple Street), we can get them into town."
Summers County Commission president Lonnie Mullins said the commission will consider a resolution of support at its regular May 20 meeting. What the commission will support is still open to discussion.
Public comments on the supplemental DEIS will be accepted until June 7. Address comments to James E. Sothen, West Virginia Division of Highways, State Capitol Complex, Building 5, 1900 Kanawha Blvd., E., Charleston, WV 25305-0430.
DOH will issue a final EIS, undergo another comment period and then issue a record of decision, which is the final step before construction begins.
- E-mail Nerissa Young at nyoung@register-herald.com
©The Register-Herald 2002
Reader Opinions
Post your opinion and share your thoughts with other readers!
And, as far as Miss Cleo stating that she thought the parkway would "keep the lights on in Hinton," this is the very same broad that insulted yours truly at the public meeting (along with another resident). I don't know how you are expected to bring in tourism when you go about (as an elected official) insulting visitors to the area.
I support a recall action against Miss Cleo and Raleigh County Commissioner John Aliff.
Ms. Young gets an e-mail later from me as well. 'Pod be pissed.
Deus Vult! 'Pod
I've seen several of these projects in Oregon. It never works. People don't drive to or thru scenic areas just to see some small town. The only way it can work is if there is a huge draw in the area, like a ski resort, and Hinton has the most convenient hotels. As this is not the case, the scheme is doomed to failure.
The writer of the article revealed her utter ignorance of government (or perhaps her complicity) when she called a statement that property would only be acquired from "willing sellers". Hah! I laugh at the very idea. If Hinton doesn't acquire it via eminent domain, the state or NPS have their ways to make people willing, such as cutting off all access to private property.
From "Landowner" Vol 24, No. 9 May 6, 2002This would apply to Scenic Byways, Scenic Rivers, Scenic Parkways....LOVELY NEW ENGLAND TRAIL.....accessed by bikers, hikers and nature lovers. That was before it got noticed by national interests..........................members of Congress want to claim it as a National Scenic Trail.But that would likely mean land takings, lost trails for recreationists and a long list of do's and don'ts by the National Park Service. Three quarters of the current trail is on private land.In New Hampshire, where the motto has always been, "Live free or die," tens of thousands of grassroots conservationists opposed the national designation and Rep. Charles Bass (R) not only refused to co-sponsor the bill - he made sure New Hampshire wasn't even mentioned in the proposed language.The biggest problem with national designations is with the federal definition of "viewshed," which is "as far as the eye can see." If you own property - not only on the designated trail but on connecting side trails, it's potentially subject to condemnation or removal by the federal government.With federalization, generous landowners who've hosted trail lovers for 50 years would likely insist that a nationalized trail sidestep their land, and start discouraging public use of their remaining property. That would mean either lost trails, or massive condemnation and "takings"."It also means that taxpayers would have to pay many millions of dollars for what they're now getting free," says Taxpayer's Recreation Alliance spokesperson Cinda Jones of North Amherst, Mass. "The House has already approved spending 2 mil. tax dollars just to find out if it's a good idea, and we can tell them right now - it's not."We don't understand why the federal government can't leave a successful private endeavor alone," continues Jones."If landowners' generosity is met with "federal takings, you can be they won't be inclined to be so generous in the future."Landowners can reach Cinda Jones at taxpayersrecreationalliance@hotmail.com.
I'm reminded of a cheerleader that's so busy shaking her pom-poms and doing "herlies"(?) for "show" that when her team is running the ball she's encouraging her fans to yell "Defense".
Do you think someone should tell her there's no signage along a parkway. It's going to blow her plans for keeping the lights on in Hinton if she doesn't have one going south on the parkway that says "Left Turn Only"
Hum, I gotta idea. Let's put the cheerleader on the parkway in Raleigh County in her mini-skirt and pom poms. Now, Dave....THERE'S a site that otta' bring em in!
Subject: NEW RIVER PARKWAY
REGARDING: NEW RIVER PARKWAY SDEIS PUBLIC COMMENT (PLEASE, MAKE MY COMMENTS A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD)
Dear Mr. Sothen!
What is the use of wasting time and the taxpayers money holding an expensive "public meeting", printing out "public comment forms" while pretending to consider what the public has to say when the agencies have already decided which "land grab option" will be chosen for the New River Parkway ?
I am appalled at the waste of our hard earned tax dollars when the agencies already know (well in advance) what they intend to do and will do in this project! The agencies' "smoke screen" of fulfilling a pretense of meeting federal / state guidelines that require "public participation" is nothing short of pure fallacy and a sham! It should be stopped!
In the latest New River Parkway "public meeting", members of the public requested an "open forum/ question/ answer" type meeting as all previous agency "work-shop" type meetings resulted in contradictory information from the agency officials. Last night was no exception! At one table, a highway official told a property owner that 12 homes would be taken, then corrected it to 14 homes. At the very next table a highway official told the same private property owner that 20 homes would be taken and both later "conceded" those two separate figures weren't THAT contradictory. One highway official suggested to a property owner the road would be 4 lanes wide then when confronted corrected that to 2 lanes. One official told a private property owner whose family has owned land on New River Road for over 200 years that the parkway would only be built IF the highway department got the money. Today's Beckley's Register-Herald quotes the SAME highway official as saying they have $60 million dollars and the parkway WILL be built!! So much for "public participation"!
And, while the National Park Service was so obviously missing from last night's public meeting, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out their continuing agenda! I suggest it's obvious: "Let's back off and convince the public this a "highway" project THEN we'll step in, take-over, control, and fulfill our initial land grab scheme void of any structures in the "view shed" "as far as the eye can see"!
Therefore, let the New River Parkway record further reflect that:
I AM OPPOSED TO THE NEW RIVER PARKWAY ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE NEW RIVER.
I DEMAND A COMPLETE ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF EACH OF THE FOUR OPTIONS LISTED IN THE SDEIS AND THAT SUCH AN ANALYSIS INCLUDE THE NO BUILD OPTION AND ALL AS REQUIRED UNDER THE FLEX ACT.
I DEMAND THAT A "NO-BUILD" OPTION BE LISTED AS AN OPTION WITH THE FOUR GIVEN AND AS REQUIRED BY NEPA!
I DEMAND THAT FULL/CURRENT/COMPLETE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDIES BE DONE ON AND IN THE COMPLETE PROJECT AREA AND RELATIVE SOLELY AND ONLY TO THE NEW RIVER PARKWAY PROJECT.
I DEMAND THAT THE PUBLIC BE GIVEN IMMEDIATE NOTICE OF THE MEANING OF "PARKWAY" AS SPELLED OUT UNDER THE TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT OF THE 21ST CENTURY (TEA 21)!!!!!
I DEMAND A FULL AND COMPLETE WRITTEN ACCOUNTING OF ALL THE FEDERAL /STATE MONIES THAT HAVE BEEN SPENT TO DATE ON THIS PROJECT AND THAT SUCH INFORMATION BE MAILED TO ME IMMEDIATELY. (MAKE THIS A FOIA REQUEST!)
I DEMAND THAT THIS PROJECT BE STOPPED WITH NO FURTHER WASTE OF FEDERAL AND STATE TAX DOLLARS UNTIL ALL OF THE ABOVE ARE DONE!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.