|
News Service May 29, 2003
Hoke Land Use Questioned
By Todd Leskanic Staff
writer
RAEFORD - Some Hoke County residents say they want more
input in land transactions involving the county and Raeford.
The residents formed a committee about two weeks ago after
members heard the recommendations of a land-use study designed to stop
development around Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base.
Some recommendations require legislation that would restrict
land use within one mile of Fort Bragg. The county commissioners voted not to
adopt the recommendations after landowners complained about the proposed
restrictions. The Raeford City Council also rejected the
recommendations.
On Wednesday, committee members William Fields and Steve
Connell gave a presentation to the county commissioners and asked for the
board's support in their efforts. The commissioners voted unanimously to support
the committee. The Raeford City Council voted to support the committee on Monday
night.
Fields, the committee spokesman, said the land-use
recommendations are part of a larger plan by the military and state and federal
organizations to buy Hoke land. Less county-owned land would mean less ad
valorem taxes. The county has many needs and is not receiving reimbursement for
the lost tax revenue, they said.
Fields said the committee takes issue with the
recommendations. He questioned Fort Bragg's Cooperative Agreement with the
Nature Conservancy, a national preservation group.
According to the U.S. Army Environmental Center, the
agreement allows Fort Bragg to buy large tracts of private land without input
from local officials.
According to the center, the agreement, which "moves away
from a strict focus on regional meetings, dialogue and planning, holds out the
realistic possibility that the red cockaded woodpecker population in the
Sandhills of North Carolina can be recovered and restrictions limiting Army
training activities on Fort Bragg can either be drastically reduced or removed
altogether."
Fields said that statement is what bothers committee
members.
"I think we've earned the right to sit at the table with all
the players and talk about the problems and solutions and ways to keep Fort
Bragg here and happy,'' he said.
Tax books thinning
In Wednesday's presentation, Fields showed that Hoke County
began with 268,000 acres when it was formed in 1911. A 92,000-acre swath of land
was taken for Bragg when it was formed in 1923.
Hoke ceded another 20,000 acres to Moore County in 1958.
More than 2,500 acres were taken by the state for McCain Sanatorium. The same
amount was sold to the Nature Conservancy in 2000 for the preservation of the
red cockaded woodpecker. The land-use recommendations would take more land off
the tax books, Fields said.
Jim Dougherty, a planner with the N.C. Division of Community
Assistance, worked on the land-use study and the resulting recommendations for
about two years.
Dougherty said the regulations inhibiting growth around Fort
Bragg are needed to keep the post a viable training ground. Development near
military bases can result in base downsizing and closure.
The recommendations include reimbursements to landowners and
local governments that agree to sell their land or their development rights.
Dougherty said the reimbursements make the plan fair. He said the study was done
openly and that Hoke County and Raeford had representatives on the commission
that attended quarterly meetings.
"Much has been demanded of Hoke County,'' Dougherty said.
"They haven't gotten nearly the economic benefits of some other counties in the
region. I can't go so far as to say it's unfair. It's unfortunate. It's
location."
Staff writer Todd Leskanic can be reached at leskanict@fayettevillenc.com or
486-3572.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ NOTE: In
accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material
herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who
have expressed prior interest in receiving this information for
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information
go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
|