News Service May 29, 2003



Hoke Land Use Questioned



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