Jack, unless they made serious changes the answers they gave at the meeting were lies.
Property Rights Foundation of America 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.
