|
Answering The
Critics
Misleading Statements
Opponents of the State acquisition
of the Little River waterfalls have made several misleading
statements in printed advertisements lately. Lets get these
out of the way before getting to the other arguments.
Buying the waterfalls will take
funds away from EDUCATION
- This is a desperate argument,
which is obviously false. Funds for the purchase of this
property will come from dedicated funds set aside for
land conservation. If not used in Western North Carolina,
they will be used in another part of the State. This
purchase will not affect education spending in the region
or statewide.
The price of the purchase will be
$24 million (per Friends of the Falls)
- Why do the figures $21 or $24
million keep popping up? Although Anthony has denied
offering to sell the property for this price, there are
many indication that he is nevertheless the source of
these numbers. Friends of the Falls hopes that the State
would never believe such numbers without having an
independent appraisal done. Considering the
"improvements" (if you can call it that) that he has
made, we would think that a fair price would be much
closer to his original $6.4 million than to his hoped-for
value.
-
- If the purchase price ended up
at $12 million, for example, this would amount to about
$1. 50 for every person
in North Carolina.
-
The State has a plan to purchase
or seize 1,000,000 acres
- Governor Hunt's Million Acre
Initiative is based on voluntary acquisitions or
conservation easements. Bill Holman, Secretary of
Environment and Natural Resource has clearly stated that
any use of eminent domain on this property would not
count toward this program. Ironically, Anthony's proposed
conservation easements might count towards this goal,
however.
The State (or Mike Easley) might
take away your land, too
- This rhetorical exaggeration is
intended to stir passions. In fact, columnist Will Haynie
went so far as to include your family heirlooms in the
scare tactic. But most people realize that this situation
is unique, and that landholders rights would not be
changed in any way. How is it unique?
- The property is fully
surrounded by a State Forest, and contains the area's
primary recreational attractions
- The landowner purchased
property that was reportedly restricted against
development
- The landowner outbid the
State, having found a way around these
restrictions
- The landowner has reneged on
promises not to build a residential development
Answering Other Arguments
The State does not have the right to take land from
private owners/developers. Doing so is a violation of
Property Rights
First, let's be clear that appraised property
value is given to the landholder, so it is not a "taking".
If the landholder chooses to appeal, the price can be
decided by a local jury.
The State uses eminent domain to acquire land from
private property owners quite frequently. This is done
regularly - and without protest - to establish new roads,
widen roads, put in power or communication lines, or to
build airports. One key difference is that on the Little
River property, no homes or families must be relocated. Are
people actually claiming that a land development company has
more property rights than families whose ownership dates
back generations? Ironic.
Well, for roads it is OK, but not for public lands
Chapter 113 of the
State Statues clearly gives the Council of State the
authority to condemn land "for the purpose of establishing
and/or developing State forests, State parks and other areas
. . ." Similar actions have been taken in other parts of the
State, and there is no question of its legality.
More important, however, is the fact that these powers
are the only way that our best-loved National Parks and
other public treasures have become established. The Great
Smoky Mountain National Park, for example, required the use
of eminent domain on about 3000 separate tracts of land.
Hundreds of families had to be relocated from their
homesteads. The establishment of public lands has always
been difficult and highly controversial. And today citizens
treasure the results of those sacrifices. The upgraded
DuPont State Forest, complete with four major waterfalls,
will also become a treasured asset known throughout the
nation.
The State lost the original bidding "fair and
square"
The Friends of the Falls campaign is about
the positive reasons why the State must pursue acquisition
of this land . But since you brought the subject up . . .
It is true that we have no evidence of illegal activities
during the sale of the Sterling lands. But there are far too
many questions remaining unanswered about that confusing
process to conclude that it was, in fact, fair. Both the
buyer and the seller were private companies with anonymous
investors and directors. Virtually no public records exist
to document anything. Jim Anthony has not revealed who he is
cooperating with, or who comprises Waterfalls Investments,
LLC. We don't have any evidence to prove or disprove all the
rumors of wrong-doing. By most accounts the Conservation
Fund and the State were treated with more disdain than
respect. And certainly the State was denied critical
information which would have helped it assess how to bid on
the property.
Because the State lost a previous round of bidding,
they should not try another way to acquire the land.
This argument makes sense only if you assume
the State is only one of many equal parties in a contest.
But the State is uniquely empowered to represent the will of
the people in all manners of public endeavor. As such, it is
not limited to the rights of private parties. Otherwise, we
would have no highways, no power lines, no airports, no
Great Smoky Mountain National Park. The State is obligated
to act in the best interest of its citizens at all times. If
mistakes were made in previous attempts to acquire the
property, its obligations to act in the public good are not
lessened in any way.
Before using its powers of condemnation, the State
traditionally first makes a good-faith offer to the existing
landholder. The State did this last year with Sterling. It
is doing this again with Anthony. We may not like or
understand the timing, but the State's right to act in the
public interest is not dimished by the previous unsuccessful
effort.
The State does not have the money to buy this
land.
The cost of purchasing these three beautiful
falls would be about $1.50 for every person in North
Carolina. Virtually everyone agrees that the resulting State
Forest would be an invaluable asset to the community for
generations to come. This is a now or never proposition; if
we don't act now, there won't be any more opportunities.
These falls are ancient wonders of Creation. Are we really
this short-sighted?
Transylvania needs the tax revenue.
The first problem with this argument is that
the proponents admit they were hoping the State would have
won the bid in the first place. We are not sure how these
two statements can co-exist.
The second problem is that Anthony's numbers are only
promises which were probably inflated to influence public
opinion. Have public officials already "spent" this money
before it became a reality? If so, voters need to know about
it.
The third problem is that everyone is ignoring the fact
that increased tourism from the falls could more than
compensate for the loss in property taxes. Conservative
estimates (based on input from local tourism officials)
start at over $1 million/year to the region. And isn't
increased economic growth more desirable than more property
taxes?
But we need more high paying jobs, not service
jobs.
True. But neither the State Forest nor Cliffs
of Brevard will supply the industrial jobs you are referring
to.
But the proposed Cliffs of Brevard development actually
offers the worst of all possibilities. A few service jobs
will be created (cleaning, mowing, cooking), but very little
benefit to the rest of the county. The guests will drive up
from South Carolina with their cars already full of their
cheaper gas and supplies. The beauty of the falls will be
used mostly as a selling tool to increase the value of the
Cliffs S.C. properties.
With an enhanced State Forest on the site, the economic
benefit would be greater and much more widely spread
throughout the community. Creative businesses will find many
new opportunities to earn money.
Transylvania already has too much public land
The economic well-being of a community is not
related to the number of acres on the tax roll.
In fact, sprawl-type subdivision development has been
documented to cost communities more than they bring in in
taxes. Everyone already knows that rapidly developing areas
of the country have the fastest growing tax rates. Do we
believe that these new residents will demand less services
of the county than others? To the contrary, wealthy
residents have a way of demanding more, not less public
services from their county government.
Transylvania will have more, not less economic growth
from the proposed State ownership of this land.
| 
Visit
our 
