ATV Florida Forum

Hi Everyone:

This post is for information regarding the black bear corridor that everyone has been talking about. Stewards will plead the 5th amendment to all opinions.

One of our members attended the presentation on the black bear corridor, last night at silver springs. Here is what information we got out of the presentation. Again remember this is second hand information, and what was presented.

The black bear corridor as everyone is aware of will run along Sr40 from silver springs to interstate 95. The corridor will also incorporate several spurs, or side roads. One spur will be sharps ferry, another will be ONF - fr88, Sr316, Sr19 to Cross Florida Greenways, and Alexander Springs loop.

Before I get into the questions - lets look at some terminology, I think that is important.

Websters definition of viewshed -  the landscape or topography visible from a geographic point, especially that having aesthetic value. What is in bold is an important point to remember.

Questions that came up.

What is the viewshed along the corridor and the spur roads?

The viewshed is as far as you can see, or until the view backsup to private property. Another words - the corridor will extend on both sides of Sr40 and the spur roads till the corridor backsup to private property

What if there is no private property it backs, i.e public lands?

If there is no private property it will encompass all the area till it hits private property, or as far as you can see. With that statement any public lands, federal or state will be in the viewshed. Hence all of the ONF will be in the view shed, because it does not back up to private land. That question was asked in regards to the ONF.

Ida-Man - the next question is just for you.

What will the regulations be if your property backs the corridor?

It is a non regulatory program - no rules, no regs. Question was asked how about junk cars, bad looking houses, the answer they don't care. 

What about recreation?

There is already recreation within the viewshed. They may add recreation, i.e bicycle paths, roller blade paths, light recreation. They indicated what recreation was already present was going to stay. Mind you specific recreation did not come up.

Again Stewards has no opinions on this subject, it is information that has been brought forward.

Opinions from the person that was present at the presentation - presentation went well overall, and very informative. The person that attended had indicated the shrimp was a lot better than the Nathans all beef hotdogs.

If you have any questions regarding this and Stewards can answer them, either post them or pm stewards.

Jack
Stewards
       

  Jack, unless they made serious changes the answers they gave at the meeting were lies.
 
  Property Rights Foundation of America (http://prfamerica.org/ScenicBywaysInnocentSounding.html) will be able to tell you that once this goes national, all of what they tell you is out-the-window. The Feds are not going to let private property alone. They haven't on any Scenic Byway yet.

   What I find interesting is the fact that they don't abide by their own manual. In chapter 2, the manual clearly states "The CAG must include representatives from each local government and/or Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) through which the corridor passes." Ch. 2, 2.4 pg. 4

   There weren't any official representatives from Marion, Lake, Volusia, or Putnam listed on the Eligibility Application. So, when I called and asked about it, I was told, "Well, the CAG doesn't really have to have a representative on it. It just looks better if a Scenic Highway (highway is state, byway is national) has some reps. from the local government on it, especially if they don't really meet many of the other criteria."

   Now, if they don't have to follow their own manual, do ya'll really believe the Federal Scenic Byway will stick to something the state people tell you? They don't want you to know how the Federal program works. They will tell you at the meetings that this is a non-regulatory program except for the billboard regulation. What they won't tell you is that the billboard regulations don't apply to those large signs the rest of the world calls billboards. The regulations apply to any and all business signage along the corridor.

   If the "viewshed" doesn't include private property, why shouldn't folks want such a thing? Because it does include private property. Make them show you the regulations that state the viewshed doesn't include private property and see what they say.

   Remember, if they don't have to abide by the manual, what makes ya'll think they will abide by what they say in a public meeting? The manual is black-and-white, what they tell you is just he said/she said. Never take someone's word for it, especially a government agency's. Always get what they tell you in writing.

   In a CAG meeting, I fought hard to get private land owners put in the one section of the Corridor Management Plan (CMP) in the same language that public land owners are; that is the CMP will work with the management plans of private land owners. I even suggested putting in the clause; "as long as the private land owner manages his lands in conjunction with the ideas and programs of the corridor."

   One of the arguments was that if a private land owner wanted to sell his property and put up a paper mill, a slick lawyer would be able to say that that paper mill would be "in conjunction with the ideas and programs of the corridor." The CAG doesn't want private land owners to have the same rights as the public land owners.

   For the same reason, they didn't invite local government officials to be on the official CAG, they didn't include private land owners in "protecting" the public land managers of the state and federal lands the corridor touches. The Byway folks don't want you to know what they are doing, what programs will be placed on this Byway, and how it will really effect ya'll.

  Why? Cause it is harder to get rid of it, than it is to get it established. The "official" CAG of the Eligibility Application is the PD&E task force. If the PD&E task force is behind this push, are they going to allow private land owners alone?

   The only one who wins here is the ONF. They get the grants for their little programs, and the state gets to widen SR40 where they want to.