{"id":75,"date":"2013-02-26T14:36:53","date_gmt":"2013-02-26T19:36:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/2013\/02\/please-deny-the-closure-of-county-road-16-leading-to-the-alapaha-river-three-neighbors.html"},"modified":"2013-02-26T14:36:53","modified_gmt":"2013-02-26T19:36:53","slug":"please-deny-the-closure-of-county-road-16-leading-to-the-alapaha-river-three-neighbors","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/2013\/02\/please-deny-the-closure-of-county-road-16-leading-to-the-alapaha-river-three-neighbors.html","title":{"rendered":"Please deny the closure of County Road 16 leading to the Alapaha River —three neighbors"},"content":{"rendered":"

Received today; they sent it to all the Commissioners. -jsq<\/p>\n

\n

\nTo the Lowndes County Commission:\n<\/p>\n

\nIt has been quite an experience dealing with the proposed closing of
\n
\n<\/a>
\na portion of County Road 16. Our quaint spot on the river in Naylor,
\nLowndes County is something that can easily be taken for granted,
\nbut it is something that should be treasured and appreciated by the
\nentire county. While we have learned a rich history about Naylor and
\nthe County Road proposed to be closed, we will not encumber you with
\nthese details. We will let you know in this letter the laws and
\nreasons why the proposal should be denied.\n<\/p>\n

\nFirst off, the landowner did not legally own the land when he made
\nhis request for the closing of the road. The legal date this
\nproperty was deeded to Phillip Connell is February 8, 2013. The day
\nhis request was made is unknown because the letter sent had the date
\nwhited out and is an exact copy of the September 10, 2010 letter he
\nsubmitted. It is known that the proposal for a public hearing was
\nmade in the Commission meeting January 22, 2013. The county should
\nnot be hearing this proposal for being misled by Phillip Connell.
\nWhy instead is the County claiming that a legal transaction for this
\nland occurred 2 or 3 years ago and now has extended it to 3 or 4
\nyears ago? Where is the proof for this claim?\n<\/p>\n

\nSecond, the landowner’s claim about liability, trash and trespassing
\nis\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/a>
\nunwarranted. In the
\n
\nGeorgia Recreational Statute, Title 51,
\nChapter 3, Article 2<\/a> owners’ liability toward persons entering
\nthereon for recreational purposes is limited. Also, we have observed
\nand photographed 3 other nearby areas on the Alapaha River,
\nLakeland, Mayday and Statenville, Naylor is the cleanest of these
\nlocations. This lower amount of trash is most likely due to the
\nlocal concerned citizens who pick up trash down there. It is
\ndefinitely not a result of Phillip Connell who dumped large concrete
\npylons on the land to attempt to block people out of an area that
\nshould have the same prescriptive easement as the rest of the road
\nbecause it does not have trespassing signs on it. Phillip Connell
\nhas only owned this land since February 8, 2013. How does he know
\nwhether trespassing occurred on this land? Was he policing Dr.
\nAcree’s land?\n<\/p>\n

\n
\n<\/a>
\nThird, The County needs to have access to this land and the river
\nbecause the state requires that the County provide a 150 foot buffer
\nwhich should be designed to protect the corridor of the river. It is
\nstated in the Southern Georgia Regional Commission, 2011 Regionally
\nImportant Resources Plan that the Alapaha River is protected (please
\nsee attachment). In fact, there is a picture of Hotchkiss Landing
\n(the spot on the river at the end of County Road 16) on page 59,
\nunderneath the heading of Protected River Corridors. We do know the
\nCounty has a protective river corridor plan, good as of 2003. Is the
\nCounty’s plan up to date and do they still have ways to implement
\ntheir responsibilities after this road is closed?\n<\/p>\n

\nFourth, the County has a 2030 Comprehensive Plan which in its agenda
\nrefers to exactly what needs to be done in the situation we are
\ndealing with. For example in
\n
\n2.4.1 Park\/Recreation\/Conservation Area:<\/a>\n<\/p>\n

\n

\nDescription: Undeveloped, natural lands with significant natural
\n
\n<\/a>
\nfeatures including floodplains, wetlands, watersheds, wildlife
\nmanagement areas and other environmentally sensitive areas not
\nsuitable for development of any kind. Development Strategy: The
\nnatural, rural character should be maintained by not allowing any
\nnew development and promoting use of conservation easements.
\nRoadways in these areas should be widened only when absolutely
\nnecessary. Roadway alterations should be carefully designed to
\nminimize the visual impact. These areas should be promoted for
\npassive-use tourism and universally designed recreational
\ndestinations.\n<\/p>\n

\nQuality Community Objectives:\n<\/p>\n

\n1) Heritage Preservation Objective: The traditional character of the
\ncommunity should be maintained through preserving and revitalizing
\nhistoric areas of the community, encouraging new development that is
\ncompatible with the traditional features of the community, and
\nprotecting other scenic or natural features that are important to
\ndefining the community’s character.\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\nAll of this looks great on paper but needs to be implemented. As
\nstated in the \u201cLaw of Easements\u201d, Georgia Civil
\nEngineering and Surveying Land Law, November 12, 2010, Atlanta,
\nGeorgia, \u201cGeorgia joined in with other states and enacted the
\nUniform Conservation Easement Act in 1992, codified at OCGA 44-10-1
\net seq.\u201d \u201cIn conjunction with local governmental
\nagencies and the Georgia Department of Natural Resources,
\nConservation Easements are a valuable tool to preserve land for
\nfuture generations.\u201d \u201cOne of the benefits of a
\nConservation Easement for the owner of the property, other than that
\nthey have given to the public at large, is the fact that there can
\nbe significant tax incentives for doing so. The IRS may allow for a
\ntax deduction as a charitable contribution and Georgia law
\nspecifically contemplates that property taxes would be lower once a
\nConservation Easement is granted.\u201d Why isn’t the county
\nworking with Phillip Connell to provide a conservation easement? Why
\nwould they instead propose to buy land in a different area that is
\nundeveloped and in contradiction to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan?\n<\/p>\n

\nFifth, there have been many precedents set about road closings and
\nriver usage. In 1973,
\n
\n231 Ga. 255 Supreme Court of Georgia, Ronald
\nB. Griffith et al. v. C & E Builders, Inc.,<\/a> it was specifically
\nupheld that:\n<\/p>\n

\n

\n\u2018Neither the General Assembly nor a subordinate public corporation
\nacting under its authority can lawfully vacate a public street or
\nhighway for the benefit of a private individual. The street or
\nhighway can not be vacated unless it is for the benefit of the
\npublic that such action should be taken. The benefit may be either
\nin relieving the public from the charge of maintaining a street or
\nhighway that is no longer useful or convenient to the public, or by
\nlaying out a new street or road in its place which will be more
\nuseful and convenient to the public in general. If the public
\ninterest is not the motive which prompts the vacation of the street,
\nwhether partial or entire, the act of vacation is an abuse of power,
\nand especially would it be a gross abuse of power if it is
\nauthorized without reference to the rights of the public and merely
\nthat the convenience of a private individual might be subserved.’\n<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\nIt has also been uphold in courts that: \u201cThe state has a duty
\nto maintain public access routes to rivers under certain conditions
\nas part of its public trust duties. Courts have found it unlawful
\nfor a state to close off an existing public access route when there
\nare not other public access routes nearby.\u201d Will the County
\nCommission take its duties to the public serious and deny this road
\nclosure and then work with the landowner to provide a conservation
\neasement like the area deserves?\n<\/p>\n

\nAll the questions and statements contained in this letter are
\nimportant and should be considered in the decision making process of
\nthe County Commission. It should also be considered the amount of
\nletters, contact and signatures on the petitions that have come from
\nthe local community and surrounding areas. Let’s work together to
\npreserve our heritage and community. Please deny the closure of .17
\nmiles of County Road 16 leading to the Alapaha River. Thank you!\n<\/p>\n

\nSincerely,\n<\/p>\n

Brett Huntley
\n
\nChristopher Graham
\n
\nApril Huntley\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Received today; they sent it to all the Commissioners. -jsq To the Lowndes County Commission: It has been quite an experience dealing with the proposed closing of a portion of County Road 16. Our quaint spot on the river in Naylor, Lowndes County is something that can easily be taken for granted, but it is […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[97,40,14,16,2,19,88,469,55],"tags":[8736,453,456,452,470,8717,8704,8706,8701,8699,8709,455,8702,12,7,8734,8770,6,8727],"class_list":["post-75","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-activism","category-community","category-economy","category-environment","category-government","category-history","category-lowndes-county-commission","category-naylor","category-water","tag-activism","tag-alapaha-river","tag-april-huntley","tag-brett-huntley","tag-christopher-graham","tag-community","tag-economy","tag-environment","tag-georgia","tag-government","tag-history","tag-hotchkiss-landing","tag-lake","tag-lowndes-area-knowledge-exchange","tag-lowndes-county","tag-lowndes-county-commission","tag-naylor","tag-valdosta","tag-water"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=75"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=75"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=75"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.l-a-k-e.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=75"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}