To the editor:
Recent meetings I’ve attended on the Salt Creek Trail have left me confused, bewildered and definitely frustrated.
A project which has been discussed and worked on since 2002, with varying degrees of state involvement, is once again grinding to a stop due to the demands of one family.
Here’s where my confusion begins: Why would anyone enter into negotiations with the state for purchase of their property for the transfer/construction of a historic, iron bridge and not look at that bridge before they countered the state’s original offer?
And that’s what we were told at last night’s commissioners meeting. They changed their mind after looking at the bridge. It was ugly.
It’s my understanding from last night’s meeting, the state accepted the Olivers’ counteroffer at $50,000 for a quarter-acre of land. That’s right, if you crunch the numbers, that would be $200,000 an acre. The state also agreed to their requirements for a pricey, aesthetically pleasing wrought iron fence to protect their property and privacy. In the 31 years I’ve lived here, I’ve never seen undeveloped property sell at those kinds of numbers. Talk about hitting the lottery.
Next point of confusion: When did someone call and ask my husband and me if we were willing to pay back the state the $3 million they’ve invested in this project? Never received that call, yet an audience member stated last night that the taxpayers of Brown County would be pleased to repay the state those millions “a hundred dollars a year for each of us and it could be paid back” — that to ensure eminent domain never again reared its ugly head in Brown County, a very false and illogical conclusion. What happens with the Oliver property does not become precedent for future eminent domain considerations.
The Salt Creek Trail has become the false symbol and poster child for the fight against eminent domain and property rights. The Oliver family is in no way harmed by the construction of this bridge (other than offending their personal, aesthetic sensibilities of what’s ugly).
Jerry Pittman, a good commissioner, has stated repeatedly he’s against eminent domain and moved for a motion last night that it would not be used on this project. (It passed with Dave Anderson in dissent.) Last night was when many us found out why Jerry’s so against it. Seems 57 years ago, State Road 46 cut across his family’s farm and the state used eminent domain. He said it still bothers him. Personal note to Jerry: It’s time to get over it and move on. Progress happens. Thousands of lives have been saved over those years as millions of people traveled over that safer road.
Bewildered: how the demands of one family can affect an entire county and change a working relationship we’ve had with the state. And this is a family who only reside here for part of the year; they’re Florida residents for a good six months each year.
Frustrated: thousands of volunteer hours spent on this project to be thrown away — a worthy and beautiful project scrapped to satisfy the demands of the few. We need to return to a time when people considered what was best for the many and make those difficult decisions based on those factors.
It’s been asked by the Olivers and their supporters, “Would you like this in your backyard?” Personally, you bet! I love old bridges, and for someone to pay me $50,000 in addition for the privilege would be amazing.
It’s true, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Susanne Gaudin, Old Haggard Road
Send letters to [email protected] by noon Thursday before the date of intended publication (noon Wednesday on holiday weeks). Letters are the opinions of the writer. Letters must be signed by the author and include the writer’s town of residence and a contact number in case of questions. Only one letter every two weeks, per writer, to allow for diversity of voices in the opinions section. Please be considerate of sharing space with other letter-writers and keep your comments concise and to the point. Avoid name-calling, accusations of criminal activity and second- and third-hand statements of “fact.”
