Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
• . <br /> .. p"�^`. •' t�Jr, ;r 1ir;M1 . ?:r � ,'r�. ,•rIiTI;'•""fir,' <br /> FOLLOW-UP STATEMENT <br /> TO THE <br /> ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS <br /> ORANGE COUNTY PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT <br /> ORANGE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT <br /> REGARDING THE <br /> MASTER RECREATION AND PARKS PLAN <br /> BY THE <br /> • CITIZENS OF RURAL ORANGE COUNTY <br /> APRIL 4, 1988 <br /> The views and concerns of the citizens of rural Orange <br /> County regarding. you Master Recreation and Parks Plan were <br /> presented to you on February 22, 1988. At that time the <br /> emphasis was placed on the greenways for obvious reasons. <br /> The degree of absurdity was aver-riding. None the less it <br /> - was stated 'repeatedly that the entire plan was unacceptable <br /> and should be rejected. According to news media reports <br /> ,(essentially our only source of information on the subject) <br /> You made the decision to drop the proposed greenways for now, <br /> and to concentrate on parks and swimming pools. So here <br /> we are again. Apparently, you have the impression that the <br /> people of rural Orange County are not opposed to parks and <br /> swimming pools proposed in your Plan. Let us correct that <br /> impression. We are not opposed to parks and swimming pools <br /> per se. In fact if we need them, and can afford them, we <br /> will build them. We have no more right to as4:: other people <br /> to pay for our needs than you have to ask us to pay for urban <br /> needs. We are, opposed to the entire program presented in <br /> your Master Plan, and ask that it be dropped. The exercise <br /> was doomed to failure from the beginning; because the most <br /> important segment of the population was excluded in it 's <br /> preparation--the property owners and taxpayers. <br /> The basic principles upon which our concerns were <br /> . based, and the practical reasons for finding the Master Plan <br /> unacceptable were clearly stated to you at the meeting on <br /> February 22, 19GS. These have not changed. They apply <br /> egt-tally as well to the parks as to the greenways. <br /> *A critical need for additional parks has not been <br /> established. <br /> *The problems of land acquisition is the same. The <br /> difference is only a matter of degree--600 acres <br /> versus 6000 acres, a few people versus many. It is <br /> wrong for the County to confiscate land for this <br /> purpose. Reduction of the number of people directly <br /> affected from 5000 to 1 does not make it right. We <br /> will oppose any action to acquire property from even <br /> a single individual against their will . <br /> *The burden of cost , security, and the loss of rights <br /> and privacy again would fall primarily upon the <br />