Through exhaustive research of the ALLEGED Supreme Court Case cited so many times in the argument of the North Shore Road. It appears that the case in question was relative to no more than 6 families of the area looking for access to their property. With this said the rationale for furnishing access to this limited number of individuals was the reasoning behind the condemnation of the property's in question. Simply it was not reasonable for the Governmental Agencies to provide access based on this limited number of individuals.
There is NO relation to this case regarding the North Shore Road, i.e. replacement of Hwy 288.
Simply the case has never been brought.
Please reference this case through the internet by simply searching,
"USSCvsSwainlandowners"
Too many times we beleive some idle comment from someone who manipulates the truth to their own benefit. We believe it is time for YOU to DECIDE.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
Who cares?
Your exhaustive studies must have missed out on the paragraphs included below, right at the very beginning of the court documents that you reference. These are the facts that the court used to decide the case, therefore they are relevant to the decision:
I particularly enjoyed how you skipped over this little jewel:
All parties felt that the United States had neither a legal nor moral duty to build a new road of the superior type [327 U.S. 546, 550] and quality needed.
All parties meaning Swain County, the State of NC, and the US Government in the form of the TVA and the Park Service, the same parties negotiating today for a settlement.
The Relevant paragraphs are below:
The following basic facts form the background of this proceeding: Congress in 1942 in order to meet pressing power needs for war production empowered the Authority to construct Fontana Dam, on the Little Tennessee River in North Carolina. H.Rep. 1470; 77th Cong. 1st Sess. 25. The dam is one of the world's largest and creates a reservoir twenty-nine miles long. Between this reservoir and the Great Smoky Mountains National Park lie forty-four thousand acres of mountainous land, including the tracts which the government wants to condemn here. When Congress authorized construction of the dam, two hundred and sixteen families occupied this area. Their only convenient means of ingress and egress, except for foot trails, was North Carolina Highway No. 288, a road approximately fifty miles in length. When the dam was built the reservoir flooded most of the highway, rendering it useless for travel. As a result the area remained practically isolated.
As events have shown, the problem this situation created could not be easily solved. Any solution had to take into consideration the interests of the United States, of North Carolina, and of Swain County, N.C., as well as the [327 U.S. 546, 549] interests of the individuals affected. The United States' interest was that of the T.V.A. and the National Park Service. The T.V.A. had a dual interest. First, the isolated area, while not actually submerged by the reservoir, was a part of the watershed. Left in private hands it could be used to frustrate some of the objectives of T.V.A. legislation. Second, the fact that the dam had caused the highway to be flooded created a serious problem for the inhabitants and landowners in the area who had been damaged by the project. It was the statutory duty of the T.V.A. to attempt to bring about proper adjustments in order to alleviate resulting hardship and inconvenience. At the same time, the T.V.A. was not supposed to waste the money of the United States. The United States' interest in the land through the National Park Service was due to the fact that this particular area had been included in the Great Smoky Mountains Park project. Had this land been actually owned by the United States for park purposes it would have been easier to subject it to servitudes in the interest of the T.V.A. development. North Carolina was interested in the land because it was its duty to continue to hold and maintain a highway so long as its citizens continued to live within the area. Swain County had a similar interest. It had issued bonds to finance building the highway. Part of the bond issue was still outstanding.
Conferences between the interested groups brought to light facts which led to the solution ultimately adopted. It was agreed on all sides that the old road was narrow, dangerous, and far below modern standards for useful highways. Investigation showed that replacement of the old road with the same undesirable type of highway would cost about $1,400,000, while the cost of building an improved highway would greatly exceed that amount. All parties felt that the United States had neither a legal nor moral duty to build a new road of the superior type [327 U.S. 546, 550] and quality needed. This meant that type of road could only be built if North Carolina would bear the additional expense. Since the highway carried no through traffic and serviced so few people, the state was not willing to pay for the added cost and all parties agreed that such an expenditure would be wasteful and unjustifiable. The War Production Board presented further obstacles. It was of the opinion that the road was not sufficiently essential to warrant use of the materials and manpower its construction would require. For these and other reasons North Carolina objected to the T.V.A.'s settling the controversy by a mere payment of damages to it for injury to the road and by the payment of damages to individual owners for destroying their access to the area. The State contended that this would leave the area in private hands with no adequate roads to serve the people and would impose unwise, if not impossible burdens, on the State and County in connection with providing schools, police protect in, health services, and other necessary facilities.
After a year and a half of negotiations a solution was worked out. After the proposed solution was approved by the Governor, the Council of the State, and the Legislature of North Carolina, it was embodied in a settlement agreement between the State, the County, the National Park Service, and the T.V.A. Under that agreement the T.V.A. with the aid of a $ 100,000 contribution by the State was to acquire all the land in the isolated area, either by purchase or condemnation, so as to relieve the State from further responsibility for maintaining a highway to that section; Swain County was to be paid $400,000 by the Authority to help retire its outstanding road bonds; and the Authority was to transfer all the area lands to the National Park Service for inclusion within the Great Smoky Mountains National Park but reserving to the T.V.A. all rights required to carry out the T.V.A. program. The agreement, thus, satisfied the interests of the [327 U.S. 546, 551] state, the county, the T.V.A., and the National Park Service. The cost to the United States was several hundred thousand dollars less than the cost of rebuilding the old road. And all the landowners in the area, except these six respondents who refused to sell, have received full compensation for their property.
Again simply the case has not been brought. We can cite various facts over the 6 parties detailed in their case, who had looked to the Supreme Court to settle their issue. Or we can ask the simple question why is there so much of a kado over something that has already been settled as you put forth? If what you say is true then why go further than it has already been taken? Why offer up cash to buy out a contract that is worthless? To take things out of context and mislead does niether side justice. Has the Case been brought? I think not.
No, the fact is that the injured party (Swain County) agreed that there was no legal or moral obligation to move forward with the road. Regardless of how much the North Shore Historical Society would like to claim otherwise, legally, they aren't a party to the contract. It is up to the Swain County government to determine what is adequate compensation for their loss of an asset (Hwy 288) they paid for, and they are doing so by negotiating a settlement.
Claiming otherwise is simply misleading. The documents referenced in the article clearly show this, regardless of how much you might wish or claim otherwise.
There are several instances where the Supreme Court has ruled on issues regarding the road; the case you are talking about is only one of them. If the case does not come before the Court, you will not find a citation or history either way. However, the Court must first make a decision as to whether a case has merit. In every case where citizens or groups have petitioned the Court, the Court has ruled that the citizens or groups suing did not represent any of the four signatories to the agreement, and therefore had no right to sue. This is a decision in itself.
It may be splitting hairs, but this is preferable to the misinformation you are trying to bring to this issue.
To Nice Try
Are you willing to listen to the chairman of the Swain County Board of Commissioners that is under federal investigation right now.Seems to me you are following a crooked politician, three members of the board refused to have a public hearing to listen to the citizens of Swain County. What are they so afraid of???? MAYBE THE TRUTH. THOSE 3 COMMISSIONERS IS NOT SPEAKING FOR THE MAJORITY, JUST THE MACHINE THAT TELLS THEM WHAT TO DO AND SAY.
To Sly Fox:
What I wrote above is my opinion, pure and simple. After reading the referenced document, I thought the original post was incorrect and misleading. So I said so.
Regardless of who may or may not be under investigation - exactly how do you know that those three commissioners are not speaking for the majority of Swain County Citizens? Have you commissioned a poll to back up your assertion? Or is it simply your opinion, based on no real data?
Also, based on another post on this blog, I'm pretty sure that the commissioners spent several hours last week listening to 'the citizens of Swain County' about the road issue, and the newspaper has published literally hundreds of letters to the editor over the years on the subject. Is there new information that has arisen since last week that the commissioners did not hear in the Public Comment forum? Does there really need to be a 'public hearing' so the same things came be said again that were said at the 'public comment' portion of the commissioners meeting last week? It seems pretty clear that everyone, commissioners included, understand the issues by this point.
To Nice Try
There has been two polls in two local papers. In both cases nearly 70% of the people supported the road. You probably missed seing the results because it didn't turn out the way they wanted it to, so they buried it in their paper.
A former Commissioner Board tried to put it on a ballot twice, and the State refused to both times.
To Nice Try
Also there was another poll done on the north shore road it was with the businesses in swain county, 281 businesses were ask would they rather have a monetary settlement or a road settlement 280 supported the ROAD only one refused.
Sly Fox and Bulldog:
The "polls" you are talking about were done online, and there were no safeguards on either of them to prevent anyone from voting numerous times. I voted twice myself. So anyone sitting at home in front of a computer could have voted as many times as they liked. Hardly a scientific or accurate survey. I also doubt that there are 281 businesses in Swain County; more likely a few realtors, restaurant owners, and convenient store owners voting numerous times. Why not? They are the only ones who would benefit from a road.
As far as a referendum is concerned, that is why we elect commissioners, to talk for us. They are doing exactly that....most Swain County citizens want this done and over with by way of a settlement.
To Anonymous
Maybe you don't know but God is still in control of things. What we do in this life does matter, and how we live our lives should be an example for others to follow,especially our leaders should be held to a higher standard.
I found CHRIST many years ago and I am so thankful that I became a Christian, and no person can take that from me.
Material possessions will not matter when you and I and every human being will stand in JUDGMENT before GOD. HOPE YOU KNOW THE CHRIST THAT I DO.
??
Where in the world did this come from?
It came from someone who has found Christ!! Way to obviuos.
I understand that the poster has found Christ. Good for him. I'm a Christian too. Now tell me what this has to do with this discussion. Is the implication that because I support a settlement the Lord is against me? I don't think He is taking sides on this issue.
And our leaders are Christians also, I think. I think one commissioner was very sincere when he said he went to prayer to get an answer to the dilemma of a public hearing. Just because his answer was not what you wanted to hear does not make him "less Christian" than you.
Don't drag the Lord into this mess. And don't hide behind Him if you can't discuss something sensibly.
To Anonymous
God and Christ has everything to do with this issue. Listen carefully. Every decision has a consequence in life. The Bible says not to judge people. The way people lives their lives and the decisions they make is how we know the kind of person they are. Each person be it a commissioner or anyone else will answer to God for things they do in this life.
Our families on the North Shore had their homes, land and way of life taken from them,but the federal government state government or the local government CANNOT TAKE MY SALVATION FROM ME.
I don't drag the LORD into any mess, HE is already in my heart.
By the way, The 1943 Agreement would not be an issue if the federal government had honored their promise years ago.
TO Anonmmous
YOU TOLD SLY FOX NOT TO DRAG THE LORD INTO THIS MESS. WELL JUST WHO WAS THE COMMISSIONER PRAYING TO, THAT YOU REFERRED TO??????
MAYBE YOU ARE SO INTENT ON GETTING SOME MONEY, THAT YOU ARE NOT THINKING STRAIGHT.
to anonymous
the Lord don't get on anyone's side, we are suppose to be on the Lords side.
since you brought it up WHO was that commissioner praying to??
You said and I quote "Don't drag the Lord into this mess"
And you think you are more sensible,
To Anonymous
You made a statement about the commissioner praying about a public hearing, thats great.
Two weeks earlier he prayed about a public hearing and he was FOR the public hearing. Two weeks later he prayed and he was AGAINST a public hearing.
TWO PRAYERS, WHICH ONE DID GOD ANSWER???? I have never read in the BIBLE where GOD ever second guessed his decision.
I'm not going to debate anything to do with religion in this discussion. That's a personal issue and really has nothing to do with this.
To get back to the original theme of this discussion, the Supreme Court has ruled on or refused to hear cases regarding the road. In every case, the Court has come down to the decision that only Swain County, as represented by the Commissioners, has the right to negotiate with the other three parties to satisfy the contract of 1943. The Court has also decided that this can include any provisions or revisions to the contract that will satisfy all the parties involved.
To Anonymous
I am glad you all have finally admitted that the 1943 Agreement is a legal contract. We have been told time and again that it was not.
The 1943 Contract is a legal unenforceable contract. The terms of the contract can be legally changed by agreement of the four signatories of the contract.
Sly Fox said:
>> The Bible says not to judge people.
Many of the commenter's on this blog, Sly Fox included, would do well to follow his advice. There seems to be a lot of 'judging people', from the amount of name calling that goes on here whenever someone posts a comment that road supporters don't agree with.
I don't judge anyone. We know a person by the way they live daily. The road supporters has been up front and honest. May God bless each and every one of them. I appreciate the people that gave up their land and homes, it wasn't easy, and it is still traumatic for them to think about what happened.
Sly Fox: I don't judge anyone
Excuse me???
Sly Fox:
>>Seems to me you are following a crooked politician, three members of the board refused to have a public hearing to listen to the citizens of Swain County. - Jan 14
>>You probably missed seeing the results because it didn't turn out the way they wanted it to, so they buried it in their paper. - Jan 15
>>The only benefits of a money settlement would be to a handful of crooked people - Jan 20
To whom ever it concerns:
THE BIBLE SAYS "YOU SHALL KNOW A TREE BY THE FRUIT IT BEARS"
A CORRUPT TREE CANNOT BRING FORTH GOOD FRUIT. WHY ARE YOU SO AFRAID OF THE TRUTH???
I heard on "GOOD MORNING AMERICA" that Swain County, North Carolina is the second most corrupt place in the U.S. when it comes to politics. Number one was Chicago.
This is so sad, that this is how people think of us.
To Honest:
That is bulls**t on so many levels I have difficulty typing this letter. You heard no such thing. It's kinda like asking your pastor "have you quit beating your wife yet?".
To Anonymous
It don't matter if you believe it or not it happened. Since you know everything search it out for yourself. I don't lie and I Don't have to listen to your bull. You don't deserve any of my time!!!!!!!
Post a Comment