Road to Nowhere on NPR

While I do have empathy for the desire of those who want to visit their old
home place or the cemetary where their relatives are buried, building a road
across 34 miles of shoreline at the cost of $600,000,000 isn't the answer.
The families already are given transportation across Fontana Lake *and* bus
transportation to the old home sites and graveyards. They want to eat their
cake and have it, too.

I have had many discussions with friends and clients who have lived in Swain
County their entire lives about this issue. The most enlightened comment
came from a friend whose family was moved out to build the lake and then had
half their property taken to begin building the Road to Nowhere. She said it
was a conflict between those who were always looking backwards (pro-road)
and those who hoped to build a better future (anti-road, pro-settlement) for
their children so that they could remain in Swain County and not have to
seek a livelihood elsewhere. As things stand now, Swain County is one of the
poorest counties in North Carolina and has traditionally had one of the
highest unemployment rates.

And finally, the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, like all National
Parks, belong to ALL Americans and decisions about the Park should be made
on a national basis. To give a small but vocal minority in a county of
10,000 the power to decide for all Americans is ludicrous.

John in WNC


"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
om...
Daniel-San wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote ...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5218050

I take no side on whether or not the road should be continued, as I
don't
know enough about the issue. But, I do want to thank you for posting the
link. ...

I don't know which side I'm on in this either. On the one
hand building a road through that part of the Park is costly
and unwise and I usually take the environmentalist side, but
on the other hand a lot of Fortenberrys were displaced when
TVA built the dam at Guntersville, Alabama and I know that
side of the issue too.

--
Ken Fortenberry

"JohnR" wrote in message
k.net...
While I do have empathy for the desire of those who want to visit their
old
home place or the cemetary where their relatives are buried, building a
road
across 34 miles of shoreline at the cost of $600,000,000 isn't the answer.
The families already are given transportation across Fontana Lake *and*
bus
transportation to the old home sites and graveyards. They want to eat
their
cake and have it, too.

I have had many discussions with friends and clients who have lived in
Swain
County their entire lives about this issue. The most enlightened comment
came from a friend whose family was moved out to build the lake and then
had
half their property taken to begin building the Road to Nowhere. She said
it
was a conflict between those who were always looking backwards (pro-road)
and those who hoped to build a better future (anti-road, pro-settlement)
for
their children so that they could remain in Swain County and not have to
seek a livelihood elsewhere. As things stand now, Swain County is one of
the
poorest counties in North Carolina and has traditionally had one of the
highest unemployment rates.

And finally, the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, like all National
Parks, belong to ALL Americans and decisions about the Park should be made
on a national basis. To give a small but vocal minority in a county of
10,000 the power to decide for all Americans is ludicrous.

Living where I do, this issue doesn't impinge on me directly.....well, not
much anyway. As it happens, I've actually been to the place that all the
fuss is about a couple of times to fish in a beautiful trout stream. It's
not one of my favorite streams (there are many others in the region that
suit my own admittedly idiosyncratic tastes better), but I like it well
enough that I would go back with little prodding.

The setting is gorgeous.....deep woods in the mountains that the casual
observer could easily mistake for the forest primeval.....the
wilderness.....virgin territory. It's the kind of place that anyone with an
appreciation for wild outdoor places would want to see. It is also about as
romantic a setting for the old family graveyard as one could hope for. Even
someone as blasé about mortal remains as me would be sorely tempted to make
occasional visits if it meant going to such a place. How much more so then
for those who take such matters seriously?

Others have covered the issue pretty well but there's still a couple of
things worth considering. Very real (I think) legal and moral contractual
considerations aside, there probably aren't a lot of the original residents
left. On the one hand, as they continue to age they will find it ever more
difficult to visit the graves of their loved ones. Boat access to the AREA
is easy enough (and delightful) but there is no dock. Elderly and infirm
visitors must already have a difficult time scrambling up the bank and
making the more than half mile walk to the cemetery. This problem will only
get worse with time. On the other hand, in a couple of decades at most
there will be no original inhabitants still alive and interested. A
generation or two down the road there will be only an occasional idly
curious descendant to make the trip. Meanwhile, if a road is built it is
absolutely certain to bring large numbers of people into a hitherto
relatively unavailable corner of what is, after all, one of the most popular
tourist attractions in the world. The inevitable result is that the
recreational value of the land in close proximity to the road skyrockets.
The equally inevitable consequences to the physical environment have not
only already been alluded to by others, they are also obvious. What may not
be so obvious is that development of some sort will naturally follow in such
a beautiful spot and, eventually, an unused and little visited cemetery will
be deemed unnecessary and a waste of valuable space. The graves will be dug
up and "The Old Cemetery Picnic Area" will take its place. There is no way
to gauge exactly how long it will take, but putting a road in there is the
kiss of death for the cemetery it is supposed to serve.

Wolfgang

"Wolfgang" wrote
(excellent reasoning snipped)

There is no way
to gauge exactly how long it will take, but putting a road in there is the
kiss of death for the cemetery it is supposed to serve.

there you go! i just *knew* you still had it in you to write something
here that made good sense.



yfitons
wayno('course, it was one helluva long time coming...)

"Wayne Harrison" wrote in message
. ..

there you go! i just *knew* you still had it in you to write something
here that made good sense.



yfitons
wayno('course, it was one helluva long time coming...)

Well, if the trip was easy, EVERYBODY would be there.......right?


Wolfgang

On Fri, 17 Feb 2006 09:32:42 -0600, "Wolfgang"
wrote:

Living where I do, this issue doesn't impinge on me directly.....well, not
much anyway. As it happens, I've actually been to the place that all the
fuss is about a couple of times to fish in a beautiful trout stream. It's
not one of my favorite streams (there are many others in the region that
suit my own admittedly idiosyncratic tastes better), but I like it well
enough that I would go back with little prodding.

The setting is gorgeous.....deep woods in the mountains that the casual
observer could easily mistake for the forest primeval.....the
wilderness.....virgin territory. It's the kind of place that anyone with an
appreciation for wild outdoor places would want to see. It is also about as
romantic a setting for the old family graveyard as one could hope for. Even
someone as blasé about mortal remains as me would be sorely tempted to make
occasional visits if it meant going to such a place. How much more so then
for those who take such matters seriously?

Others have covered the issue pretty well but there's still a couple of
things worth considering. Very real (I think) legal and moral contractual
considerations aside, there probably aren't a lot of the original residents
left. On the one hand, as they continue to age they will find it ever more
difficult to visit the graves of their loved ones. Boat access to the AREA
is easy enough (and delightful) but there is no dock. Elderly and infirm
visitors must already have a difficult time scrambling up the bank and
making the more than half mile walk to the cemetery. This problem will only
get worse with time. On the other hand, in a couple of decades at most
there will be no original inhabitants still alive and interested. A
generation or two down the road there will be only an occasional idly
curious descendant to make the trip. Meanwhile, if a road is built it is
absolutely certain to bring large numbers of people into a hitherto
relatively unavailable corner of what is, after all, one of the most popular
tourist attractions in the world. The inevitable result is that the
recreational value of the land in close proximity to the road skyrockets.
The equally inevitable consequences to the physical environment have not
only already been alluded to by others, they are also obvious. What may not
be so obvious is that development of some sort will naturally follow in such
a beautiful spot and, eventually, an unused and little visited cemetery will
be deemed unnecessary and a waste of valuable space. The graves will be dug
up and "The Old Cemetery Picnic Area" will take its place. There is no way
to gauge exactly how long it will take, but putting a road in there is the
kiss of death for the cemetery it is supposed to serve.

Wolfgang

Wow! Very well said, and I can't believe I actually agree with
something you have written. Such a road would be a kiss of death for
the area.

A similar situation arose when the Massachusetts politics needed a
reservoir for Boston. Quabbin flood a number of towns, and people
were displaced. However, any cemetaries that would be flooded were
moved.

Would moving the cemetaries from the north side of Fontana solve the
problem? Jeff?

Wolfgang wrote:

Living where I do, this issue doesn't impinge on me directly.....well, not
much anyway. As it happens, I've actually been to the place that all the
fuss is about a couple of times to fish in a beautiful trout stream. It's
not one of my favorite streams (there are many others in the region that
suit my own admittedly idiosyncratic tastes better), but I like it well
enough that I would go back with little prodding.

The setting is gorgeous.....deep woods in the mountains that the casual
observer could easily mistake for the forest primeval.....the
wilderness.....virgin territory. It's the kind of place that anyone with an
appreciation for wild outdoor places would want to see. It is also about as
romantic a setting for the old family graveyard as one could hope for. Even
someone as blasé about mortal remains as me would be sorely tempted to make
occasional visits if it meant going to such a place. How much more so then
for those who take such matters seriously?

Others have covered the issue pretty well but there's still a couple of
things worth considering. Very real (I think) legal and moral contractual
considerations aside, there probably aren't a lot of the original residents
left. On the one hand, as they continue to age they will find it ever more
difficult to visit the graves of their loved ones. Boat access to the AREA
is easy enough (and delightful) but there is no dock. Elderly and infirm
visitors must already have a difficult time scrambling up the bank and
making the more than half mile walk to the cemetery. This problem will only
get worse with time. On the other hand, in a couple of decades at most
there will be no original inhabitants still alive and interested. A
generation or two down the road there will be only an occasional idly
curious descendant to make the trip. Meanwhile, if a road is built it is
absolutely certain to bring large numbers of people into a hitherto
relatively unavailable corner of what is, after all, one of the most popular
tourist attractions in the world. The inevitable result is that the
recreational value of the land in close proximity to the road skyrockets.
The equally inevitable consequences to the physical environment have not
only already been alluded to by others, they are also obvious. What may not
be so obvious is that development of some sort will naturally follow in such
a beautiful spot and, eventually, an unused and little visited cemetery will
be deemed unnecessary and a waste of valuable space. The graves will be dug
up and "The Old Cemetery Picnic Area" will take its place. There is no way
to gauge exactly how long it will take, but putting a road in there is the
kiss of death for the cemetery it is supposed to serve.

There's no reason to worry about development along the road.
The road would be entirely within the boundaries of the Park.
And I think the environmental concerns are overstated as well.
The road through the Lamar Valley in Yellowstone handles a lot
of traffic year round and the elk, bison, wolves, coyotes,
birds and fish don't appear to be any worse for the wear. Then
too 95% of all tourists never get more than a quarter mile from
their vehicles which limits the damage from the teeming hordes.

--
Ken Fortenberry

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
. com...

There's no reason to worry about development along the road.
The road would be entirely within the boundaries of the Park.
And I think the environmental concerns are overstated as well.
The road through the Lamar Valley in Yellowstone handles a lot
of traffic year round and the elk, bison, wolves, coyotes,
birds and fish don't appear to be any worse for the wear. Then
too 95% of all tourists never get more than a quarter mile from
their vehicles which limits the damage from the teeming hordes.

There's no need to worry about private commercial
development......probably.....maybe. Um......I think I'll worry about that
anyway. I haven't spent a great deal of time in our national parks.....or
researching them, for that matter. Nevertheless, I'll bet a shiny new
nickel that there ARE private commercial ventures operating today in some of
them. At any rate, private and commercial is not the only way to go. The
pendulum swings, to be sure, but over the past century it has tended to
swing more one way than the other. There are ever more developments in the
parks......roads not being the least among them. And where there are roads
there will be scenic overlooks, rest stops, welcome centers, information
kiosks, historical markers, interpretive centers, campgrounds......and
parking lots. The mouth of Hazel creek is an ideal spot for any or all of
the above. There is, in fact, already a campground of sorts, and a ranger
station or some such beast. Much of the groundwork for further development
was done a long time ago......there was a town there. That's why the
cemetery is there.

The environmental impact would be severe long before the first tourist
automobile hit the pavement. Road building is justly famous for its impact.
Insofar as scenery is a valued aspect of environment (and I think you'll
find few who will argue against it), a road......any road.....is arguably a
permanent scar. Automobiles and, especially, trucks and buses belch forth
vast quantities of airborne pollutants and leak significant amounts of
others. Toilets leak, people dump all sorts of noxious **** is water and
along roads. Virtually any sort of development would require running in
electrical service......probably on poles. Gas, sewer and water lines are
also quite possible. Litter is a certainty.

It is certainly true that a number species of large animals appear to be
doing well in Yellowstone, and one can hardly contest the fact that black
bears thrive in GSMNP. But I suggest that a careful examination of whether
or not any of these is a good indicator species or keystone species before
accepting their presence as rock solid proof of a healthy ecosystem. And,
anyway, it is obvious that there must be a threshold beyond which none of
these species can tolerate further development or human incursion.
Yellowstone is a BIG place......lots of room to move aside, get some
breathing room. GSMNP is big too.....but not as big as Yellowstone. How
much can it take? How much can the salamanders, the wild ginseng, the
hemlocks, the brook trout and the myriad species whose names neither you nor
I know take? How many species have yet to be discovered and described
because they long ago disappeared from other, more developed, regions and no
one has yet looked here?

If 95% of all tourists (I just LOVE the easy availability of precise
statistics here in ROFF!) never stray more than a quarter mile from their
vehicles, just imagine what that quarter mile is going to look like in about
thirty years. And, what's 5% of 10,000,000 ("Visitors to the Smokies
number approximately 10 million--and visitation continues to grow yearly.
http://www.smokiesguide.com/FAQs/ )?

There's more. LOTS more.

Wolfgang

wrote in message
...

A lot of locals would want the road, because they'd be hoping to get a
job at the places on the roadside. Not to mention the people really
eager to get the paychecks from the construction work. The owners of
the equipment would get the most, but the laborers who are now out of
jobs aren't often (some will, but how many?) going to look past a year
or so of good pay.

All true. Nothing is simple, is it?

But then, the 600 million dollars for the construction would be spread
out.....God only knows where. The.....what was it.....52
million?....settlement might stay closer to home? Hm......maybe.

As far as the cemeteries are concerned, it'd be cheaper to hire litter
bearers to carry in the infirm who want to go and see their parents
graves than to build a road for them.

Also true. Sorta makes you wonder just who wants exactly what and precisely
why, eh?

Pontoon boats with those dock
/ ramp things to get them to the landing and then carrying. Hey, I'd
enjoy it.

You'd enjoy it even more if you'd ever actually seen the place. It really
IS lovely.

By the by, I agreed with everything else you said that I snipped.

So did I. Well......mostly.

Wolfgang

Ken Fortenberry wrote:


There's no reason to worry about development along the road.
The road would be entirely within the boundaries of the Park.
And I think the environmental concerns are overstated as well.
The road through the Lamar Valley in Yellowstone handles a lot
of traffic year round and the elk, bison, wolves, coyotes,
birds and fish don't appear to be any worse for the wear.
Then
too 95% of all tourists never get more than a quarter mile from
their vehicles which limits the damage from the teeming hordes.


I can't believe this came from you! Just what we need, more roads
through our National Parks.

Willi

Willi wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:


There's no reason to worry about development along the road.
The road would be entirely within the boundaries of the Park.
And I think the environmental concerns are overstated as well.
The road through the Lamar Valley in Yellowstone handles a lot
of traffic year round and the elk, bison, wolves, coyotes,
birds and fish don't appear to be any worse for the wear.
Then
too 95% of all tourists never get more than a quarter mile from
their vehicles which limits the damage from the teeming hordes.


I can't believe this came from you! Just what we need, more roads
through our National Parks.

Not roads, road, singular. A road the federal government
promised, and started, to build.

I'm not going to lobby for it or anything, I'm just saying
I can see both sides of this issue and the Park Service
does have experience with roads through fragile places,
like the Lamar Valley for instance.

--
Ken Fortenberry