The issue of the North Shore Road issue has been clouded over the years by emotion on both sides, FOR and AGAINST. On the one side you have the emotion of the people or their relatives who have strong ties to past and the promises made, i.e. Contract / Agreement.
On the other we have the strong emotion of being good stewards in the present time through environmental conservation for an undeveloped area with the lure of a monetary settlement in lieu of a road.
Should we ever be able to lay all the emotion to the side and consider only the facts as they actually exist, and how we have gotten to the present day without the influence from any side the situation should be solvable.
This Blog would propose formulating a time line from the conception of the idea of the Fontana by the US Government / TVA to the present, including all known agreements, promises, and actions taken by any party or agents involved to show the actual situation as it was and is presently. But again emotion must be left aside. It would be very important to place these items or events in the order of which they occurred so as to accurately show a path to the present day.
Once the facts are out in front of all then it would be time to intelligently work through a reasonable solution regardless of the outcome to either side.
Are there any takers?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
All the facts are out and the only thing left is to be prepared for events to follow the acceptance and delivery of the cash settlement.
It is obvious to all on both sides that the Road is gone . Gone with it is all the potential income and the boom in tourism on the North Carolina side of the GSMNP.
I Like your idea of a time line, but why start it so late in the history of the region? Why not go back at least to the removal of the Principal People, and dividing up of the little reservatons in the area.
Now as it appears in the comments for some time now. There seems to be highly charged emotions driving the casue on both sides. While I feel for the plight of the little reservations and the Prinicpal People. That is another issue for another day. Hearing all the retoric from both sides with little substance just as your comment begins, simply brings to mind the question of what do we fear? The only thing that the retoric achieves is confusion of the facts with emotion and provoke further emotion. In order to bring about unity you must have an intelligent settlement of the situation. There can be no intelligent settlement without a clear view of the facts as they actually are. It is possible regardless of what either side thinks the matter may very well end in a court. What do we have to fear from the truth whatever that may be. Now let us move on to the next level.
I'm reposting an earlier comment to try to kickstart things- it's not directly tied to a timeline, but it does offer somewhat of a history of wilderness designations in other parks, particularly those with direct relevance to the situation on the North Shore. I believe this to be relevant to the current conversation, as a letter on the topic of Wilderness, authored by Mike Clampitt, was published today by the Smoky Mtn News.
The comments below, which suggest several possible compromise positions, got rather shouted down the first time they were offered, but hopefully it will get a better reception this time.
--------------------------
There is an old saying, 'When given lemons, make lemonade'.
A Wilderness Designation for the North Shore is just such a chance. Rather than looking at it as something too terrible to contemplate, the potential designation of the North Shore under the Wilderness Act provides an opportunity to encapsulate in law several of the aims or solutions to concerns by some Swain residents.
For an area to be designated as wilderness under the terms of the Wilderness Act, a separate piece of legislation is required. This new law would state that such and such an area is now designated as wilderness under the terms of the Wilderness Act (P.L. 88-577). These new laws also typically spell out exceptions to the Wilderness Act that the new 'wilderness' will follow.
Examples of such 'exceptions' to the Wilderness Act can be viewed in the online document
For example, a directly relevant example is the legislation establishing the Charles C. Deam Wilderness in Indiana. Section 3 of the act establishes in law the right of public access to a cemetery.
Another issue seems to be concern about buffer areas. Here is an example of wilderness area that establishes limits of buffer zones (see section 6). Here is another example, this time in Nevada (see Section 7)
It is clear, from reviewing existing laws establishing Wilderness Areas, that there is plenty of wiggle room in negotiating exactly what 'Wilderness' will mean in these documents.
Herein lies the opportunity. Rather than depend on the goodwill (or not) of the Park Service to provide access to cemeteries on Decoration Days, a North Shore Wilderness Designation law could provide an opportunity to legally bind the Park Service to providing access and transportation. Should they not perform, you would at least have the redress of taking them to court. Today you have no real option other than writing letters.
Similarly, the first document I linked points out that the Wilderness Act §4(d)(1) allows "the use of aircraft or motorboats, where these uses have already become established," subject to "desirable" restrictions;
While the phrase "desirable restrictions" sounds ominous, this is exactly the type of thing that could be addressed specifically in the establishing legislation. Recreational use of Lake Fontana is clearly "already established" in the North Shore area. A wilderness designation for the North Shore could specifically prohibit any restriction on these types of activities.
Specific historic structures in the North Shore area could also be exempted from Wilderness Restrictions by this legislation.
For most other matters, the North Shore area is already being managed as wilderness, so no great change occurs in the future if it is made official.
In summary, a Wilderness Designation provides a legal mechanism to put many (not all, but many) of the goals of the North Shore Historical Association into law. Were the leaders of that group to reach out of other parties that they traditionally consider on the other side of the fence - i.e. Cash Settlement forces, Friends of the Smokies, Smoky Mtn Association, and yes, even maybe the Sierra Club, I suspect they would find widespread support for just such compromises. It would be a win-win for everyone.
I know this proposal will probably make a few heads explode, but take a deep breath, count to 100 and then give it some real consideration. You can fight a Wilderness Designation and run the risk of losing completely, or embrace it and make it happen on terms acceptable to you. The choice is yours.
November 23, 2007 10:32 AM
I'm not sure what happened, but the formatting on the first link got messed up. The document I intended to reference is: Wilderness Laws: Prohibited and Permitted Uses
Also, here is the correct link to the Charles C. Deam Wilderness
Sorry for the inconvienence
Bravo! Very well said. This whole idea of the road supporters using their considerable skills to achieve the best deal that they can by getting on board with the settlement on their own terms is exactly what I've been advocating.
While on the topic of possible alternative outcomes, here is another scenario with a potential win-win outcome if a cash settlement is accepted:
Last spring, there was an effort to open a book store in Bryson City by the Great Smoky Mtn Association (GSMA), similar to the ones they run at the Oconoluftee and Sugarland Visitor Centers. While so far it hasn't occurred, the interest is still there.
Building on this effort, what if the North Shore Historical Association (NSHA) and GSMA teamed up to design, build and manage a Visitor Center and Museum in Bryson City? The center could serve as an informational stop for visitors to the Deep Creek and Fontana Road areas of the park, but more importantly, it could serve as a memorial and museum to the North Shore natives - the story of the early settlers (Both Native American and those who came later), the rise of the Logging industry, and mining, and the impact on those living there when the Park and Lake Fontana were created. The story of North Shore area (road controversy and all) could be told from the viewpoint of it's residents, a musuem version of the eloquent talks given by David Monteith, and told in Duane Oliver's book 'Hazel Creek - From then til Now'.
A Bryson City Visitor Center/Museum has many positive impacts - it would raise tourism in the area, as it would provide an additional draw to this part of the Park. The GSMA and NSHA would have merchandising/fundraising opportunities. Finally, the North Shore story could be preserved and told.
How to pay for this? With the settlement money, many things become possible. An agreement could be negotiated to spend the first couple of years interest, potentially amounting to 6-10 million dollars, to construct the facility. An additional allowance for operating expenses, say $100k or so annually, could be dedicated out of the proceeds of future interest from the settlement fund. Volunteers could largely be used for staffing, as is common in many national park facilities.
Tourism increases, thus more business for the local economy. The NSHA and GSMA have opportunities for fund raising via bookstore, cafeteria, etc..and the North Shore legacy is preserved once and for all in a top notch fashion.
To all the uneducated cash settlement people and wilderness supporters why gamble new legislation with the same federal government that came to Swain County before and convinced 3 uneducated commissioners to support what the government wants when we already have a contract that will keep wilderness out and guarantees cemetery access and provide a brighter future for Swain County with over 10 million dollars annually and over 700 jobs a year. Citizens support your heritage and support the 1943 Agreement, why gamble when you already hold a full house?????
to it's a worthy goal
It is evident to me you nor your family didn't have any ties to the North Shore. You would feel differently if you had. My heritage is not for sale. This issue will never be over for us until the 1943 Agreement is fulfilled.
Lone Wolf:
What happened to the no emotion rule the moderator set for comments on this post?
Calling people uneducated because you disagree with them is offensive behavior, which unfortunately is all too common on this blog.
Please discuss the topic at hand, rather than insulting people. The poster above offered several potential alternatives. You may not agree with them, but why not discuss the pros and cons, rather than resorting to personal attacks.
To Anonymous
If the shoe fits wear it! Why can't you stand the emotion or the heartache we have experienced for 64 years?
Why do you side with the outside environmentalist groups? Why not support the contract and our North Shore citizens? You have no heart for the people that lost everything so you and your environmental buddies can enjoy our homeland.
To Anonmmous
Can you just for a minute imagine how you would feel if it were you and your family that was forced from your land, lost your home, way of life and friends you had grown up with?? I believe you would feel different.
Why can't you discuss how our people felt when the federal government gave them no choice and forced them from their homes?? This is still trauma for us today.
There is no way to discuss this issue without emotion!!!!!
To Sly Fox:
Yes, the issues can be discussed without all of the emotion.
You and others from time to time have pointed to the economic benefits of a road. The EIS study discussed some of them. It did NOT discuss benefits of a settlement, at least not in detail. That's because it would depend entirely on how any settlement funds are used. There is an excellent discussion of exactly this, done by a Phd another academics at Warren Wilson College. You will have to have Adobe Reader installed to look at it:
http://www.warren-wilson.edu/~elc/NorthShoreEconomicAnalysis.pdf
I challenge anyone to read this and compare the economic benefits of seasonal tourism jobs versus long-term employment. Open your minds to the possibility of other views than your own.
To Anonymous
You don't have to get ornery, the next commissioners will not spend money they might get, the way the present ones does. No one can compare the economic benefits of any money settlement. The only benefits of a money settlement would be to a handful of crooked people. If history repeats itself in Swain County.
Let us understand that no matter the position taken, over the time span of 60+ years the issue has not been settled. While it is admirable that some wish to seek a solution through moneytary settlement at present there is nothing on the table but a one time offer with hope for additional funding in the future. At present, cash in hand 6 million. If this was a serious attempt with backing of the Federal Government, ie Congress and the president then it would be a total of 52 million or 600 million, let us not kid ourselves. We're talking peanuts if the Federal Government was totaly behind the matter. At present there are a hand full of interested people who do not want to see this matter escalate for fear of the unknown on both sides. Presenting the case logically and without emotion should yield results. Very probably not in this forum or at the present level but at higher levels of government. Unless it is sold out by those who simply do not understand the entire situation before it can be understood. The upper hand at this point belongs to the County for fullfillment of this contract. I believe that if it were to be presented to the Courts appropriately then the true value of this contract could be realized, that could come in a installation of a road or moneytary settlement far out doing the proposed or a mixutre of both. To the liking of all? Probably not. However it would be settled then.
If you read the Contract, even casually, you will realize just how unenforceable it is. Take it to court? Any court in the land would agree that the Contract, as written, is a:legal and b:unenforceable. There is no provision for non-compliance.
It's time to strip away all the myths, legends, and lies. There will never be a road. The cash settlement, flawed or not, is the best deal we can get. As a matter of fact, it is the only deal we can get.
In todays times when almost any thing can be sued for and almost anything can be gained. It is foolish to consider that it is not enforceable. The intent of the contract would be the mechanism. Has the Federal Government denied the contract? No it has simply chosen not address it when possible.
If one tells himself long enough that he is not worthy sooner or later he begins to beleive it. If the issue is not enforceable then why hasn't the whole thing went to hell in a hand bag before now? With the rationale which you portray, it appears that the County is not entitled to anything, but if we stand in line long enough somebody will feel sorry for us / you and throw crumbs. I'm sorry but my forefathers were better than this. If it's not mine keep it. If is mine then it's time to pay up. Or just take it and shove it up your ass. True Americans may do without but we never beg. When it comes time to bend over I won't be in your receiving line.
Quit being so melodramatic. The settlement is an alternate and fair way to fulfill the contract. The original terms of the contract cannot and will not be fulfilled, so this is way to get something instead of nothing. It's that simple.
Compromise is the position of the weak.You yourself believe in the contract to the point it has value however you doubt. Thus you're willing to take the easy way out, "plea bargin so to speak",a position of weakness. With emotion out of the equation it is simply a business deal. If there is or was no merit to the issue no one would even bring it up or reply to anything but this is not the case. The issue of settlement if that is what it denegrates to should be on better terms than a fraction of the worth based on a promise and a whim brought forth by todays politicians or tomorrows has beens.
The amount of the settlement had to come from somewhere. It was calculated based upon the amount of money that Swain County would have had had they not paid off the indebtedness of the road bonds for NC 288.
I think it's fair to say that even the settlement people were suprised at the amount of money that would be required to finish the road. Had they had this figure in hand before the whole process of the DEIS started, the settlement figure probably would be higher. But again, it had to be be based on some sort of reality....just pulling a number out of a hat wouldn't have worked.
Once the DEIS process started, it was to late to try to revise the amount of the proposed settlement. And it's too late now, the die is cast.
The intrinsic value of the land, the history, the heritage is too subjective to put a number on. The only issue is, since the road will not be built, what settlement will be enough to satisfy that contract?
Now, before anyone says that their "heritage is not for sale"-that's a great slogan and it stirs powerful emotion, but the fact is that heritage has nothing to do with a strip of asphalt. Nor does it have anything to do with "a broken promise" (another of your slogans). Even if the road were built out completely, some of the cemeteries and homeplaces would not be any more accessible than they are now. Who's to say that my cemetery is more important than your cemetery? The old roads would not be opened up for you to use, and the primary reason for bulding the road is now moot.
If you want to preserve your heritage, and honor your ancestors, go to work to ensure access by way of making it part of the settlement. Someone else has said that constructing a heritage center would be a way of doing this. I agree. Also, getting something in writing about guaranteed access, specifying the nature and means of that access, could be a part of any settlement.
Start workingtowards a solution. Obstructionist tactics and plain old stubborness will not help you achieve any of your goals. The road is gone. Accept that and work toward new goals.
To Anonymous
Lone wolf would like to answer your comments, but you speak with a forked tongue, as do many federal officials. I will offer you a needle and thread if you would like to sew your tongue back together, then maybe your thoughts can be intellegent.
To Lone Wolf:
By "speaking with forked tongue", I presume you mean to say that I'm lying. Every single thing that I said in my posts-all of them-are true. As has been pointed out in other posts on this blog, if road folk can't refute the facts, they resort to name-calling. That's unfortunate. It's people like you that give the road supporters a bad name.
....and by the way, it's spelled "intelligent".
To Anonymous
Sad but true, you have reached the point of no return. You have no heart for the people that lost everything. It is impossible to discuss anything with you intelligently, you have no feelings for those people. This whole thing started with no respect from your group. I can clearly see Mr. Snyder and Mr.Hyde is still calling the shots. I will not be answering your unintelligent comments any more.
For the people who lost everything????? Every family that owned any property was paid a sum in keeping with the price for that time, those who were renting were given financial assistance in their move. Since pictures of the houses show many of the families were almost destitute, just trying to keep their family fed. Many lived on the "backside of nowhere" and actually ended up with more after the move than they could ever have had otherwise. Not everybody that moved insisted on hanging on to "the way it used to be", they got on with their lives, bettering themselves over time. It seems just a handful of people think they have to speak for every family that lived there and keep things stired up. I am speaking of a teacher, her family including young grandchildren, another man and his wife with 2 of her sisters, and a handful of others, over and over we have been subjected to the same old, same old. Too bad your families did not move your deceased family members when they had an opportunity. There are many more people who had their loved ones moved than those who were left. Would love to see the legal papers promising a road to the cemeteries. All of them?
Come on, sounds like you are saying they expected the new road to every cemetery built in time for the next year`s decoration. So you say you will never give up your fight for your heritage, so be it...good luck. You are certainly in a minority. I say, why don`t you get a life?
Once again, Sly Fox shows us just how he 'doesn't judge anyone' (according to his comments on another post)
>>Sad but true, you have reached the point of no return
>>It is impossible to discuss anything with you intelligently
>>I will not be answering your unintelligent comments any more.
Just the facts? Let's start at the beginning.
Before Fontana Dam, the Forney Creek Road District (that's the North Shore residents all the way to Eagle Creek) borrowed the money to build what we now call Old 288, the road that was flooded. This was before the state took over the road system. They built the road, or had it built. There was a problem though. They didn't pay back any of the money borrowed. They defaulted on the debt. Swain County assumed their indebtedness and went into receivership (bankrupt). However, the county did not default. The debt was refinanced and finally the last payment paid off in 1975.
This is a critical piece of information and goes to the heart of the issue. The reason there is a 1943 Agreement is that Swain County had to pay off a debt on a road for over 30 years that was underwater. This answers a host of questions that have been injected into the situation since 1943.
The idea that the 1943 Agreement was intended for the benefit of the North Shore families was a political maneuver by people within Swain County to stir up support. The word cemetery is not in the 1943 Agreement. You'll find that it began surfacing in the 70's.
What about Graham County? If there is a settlement shouldn't they get part of it. They suffered too. Many families of the North Shore moved to Graham County. This sounds enticing and some go for it. Now go back to the 1943 Agreement. Why is there one. Who paid off the road debt? How much did Graham County pay on the road debt? Nothing. Not one cent. They are not due any payment.
I would encourage all to read the 1943 Agreement. It contains a lot of the history of the situation. It had nothing to do with the North Shore residents or Graham County.
Then in 1983 there is the famous litigation where familes of the North Shore sought to legally inject into the 1943 Agreement that they were a party to it. They lost all the way to the Supreme Court. They should have. They were not a party to it.
The 1943 Agreement was never intended to resolve every issue that anyone might have with the TVA, NPS, or Dept of Interior. It's purpose was to repay Swain County for having to pay off the road debt. There may be many issues that people have but they should not be trying to hijack the 1943 Agreement because of them.
At the heart of the issue there are two distinct groups. One group claims that the 1943 Agreement and how it is settled must satisfy the North Shore families first and foremost. Another group says read the 1943 Agreement and see what it says. It states what it is, the history, and who the intended beneficiary is. It is an obligation of the federal government to the taxpayers of Swain County.
What if......?
What if, in 1943 the federal government hadn't been running short of money? What would have happened?
There would not have been a 1943 Agreement. Swain County would not have been tricked into conceding its 5th amendment rights. The federal government would have written a check to Swain County to pay off the indebtedness for the road they were about to flood and that would have been the end of it.
Trust the federal government!!!!
Inherent in the pro-road cause is a contradiction they cannot resolve.
In 1943 Swain County Commissioners believed they could trust the federal government to build this road. How has that worked out? The people today advocating for the road want you, me, everyone in the county now, to trust that same federal government to build the same road with federal officials saying they are not going to do it. If after 65 years we don't know better than to chart such a course, shame on us.
Post a Comment