Interviews with owners of property near the proposed trail reveal a range of opinions and help provide details on objections from some County Commissioners.
What a great article! Gives great perspective on the issues from both sides. The first articles i have read on the trail made the commissioners seem very opposed to it but now I can see they have very valid concerns from property owners affected by it. One thing that I see about the trail is that the land that would be used for it has always been there for the property owners. Going from used railroad tracks, to not used railroad tracks, and now to a proposed bike trail. From an environmental and economical perspective, the latter ( bike trail ) seems best alternative to them all. But to make it happen and number one in my book, is that every property owner affected needs to have their concerns addressed. As example, the property owner who would now require a fence for her dog to roam her property, should be compensated for having a fence installed. Personally, I hope the trail gets done. My number one destination would be to Mills River Creamery for a large chocolate malt. It would be great to pickup some local eggs and honey on the way back if there are owners making it available. I guess a stop with pizza slices and a beer might be too much to ask for though.
People who have lived on this land for several generations and are hopping mad about the Ecusta Trail do not seem bothered by the fact that native peoples were here many generations before all the white folks arrived, and were unceremoniously ousted from their land, to put it mildly.
Thank you heartily for a service unavailable in the local paper. Previously I have offered $5 for a subscription but got no response. Hope you can see it my way,
Dan- I understand that railbanking is not abandonment. But why do some landowners whose lands had sold easements to the railroad, and lawyers at Lewis-Rice think that they deserve compensation from the federal government? Or are there some private properties along the corridor that are not owned by the railroad and have no easements?
I'm still confused. The railroad owned the land outright or purchased easements from property owners. The railroad railbanked this land, and sold the rail corridor to Conserving Carolina for use as Ecusta Trail. Do the easements go with this sale? If so, why are property owners eligible for compensation a second time from the federal government?
What a great article! Gives great perspective on the issues from both sides. The first articles i have read on the trail made the commissioners seem very opposed to it but now I can see they have very valid concerns from property owners affected by it. One thing that I see about the trail is that the land that would be used for it has always been there for the property owners. Going from used railroad tracks, to not used railroad tracks, and now to a proposed bike trail. From an environmental and economical perspective, the latter ( bike trail ) seems best alternative to them all. But to make it happen and number one in my book, is that every property owner affected needs to have their concerns addressed. As example, the property owner who would now require a fence for her dog to roam her property, should be compensated for having a fence installed. Personally, I hope the trail gets done. My number one destination would be to Mills River Creamery for a large chocolate malt. It would be great to pickup some local eggs and honey on the way back if there are owners making it available. I guess a stop with pizza slices and a beer might be too much to ask for though.
People who have lived on this land for several generations and are hopping mad about the Ecusta Trail do not seem bothered by the fact that native peoples were here many generations before all the white folks arrived, and were unceremoniously ousted from their land, to put it mildly.
Thank you heartily for a service unavailable in the local paper. Previously I have offered $5 for a subscription but got no response. Hope you can see it my way,
Dan- I understand that railbanking is not abandonment. But why do some landowners whose lands had sold easements to the railroad, and lawyers at Lewis-Rice think that they deserve compensation from the federal government? Or are there some private properties along the corridor that are not owned by the railroad and have no easements?
Very helpful background details on all sides of a complex issue.
I'm still confused. The railroad owned the land outright or purchased easements from property owners. The railroad railbanked this land, and sold the rail corridor to Conserving Carolina for use as Ecusta Trail. Do the easements go with this sale? If so, why are property owners eligible for compensation a second time from the federal government?