During the Brevard/Transylvania County Chamber of Commerce Candidates’ Forum held on Wednesday, Sept. 4, eight candidates – four Democrats and four Republicans – vying for the four openings on the Transylvania County Board of Commissioners were asked whether or not they would support the Ecusta Trail.

Below are the candidates’ responses to the question “With the Ecusta Trail project moving forward and the first six miles to open this year, do you believe the County Commissioners should now take a more active role regarding the trail? And if so, how?”

Chase McKelvey (R): I believe that currently I know the county commissioners have put a lot of it back onto the city. I know Larry (Chapman) is actually on the current (Ecusta Trail Advisory) board now. They’re doing the job that they are supposed to being doing. Currently, right now, I know the city is going to be coming to us for quite a few things; I know that they’ve presented a lot of things. And my current stance on that right there, I don’t believe, I don’t think it really remains within the lines of the scope of where its at and the county really just needs to stay within the parameters of where they’re currently standing and the city can just maintain that control because of how everything has been presented currently where it’s at. I think the county should defer it all to the city and the city can just come to us. That is currently what I truly believe. 

Christy Blakely (D): My understanding is that right now, it being under city control, the city law enforcement is going to be enforcing the entire length of the Ecusta Trail property, but the second that something were to happen off the trail, it would then be county jurisdiction, so I think there’s some real logistical challenges with thinking if that is the best way that we as a community should be interacting and involving our resources, especially our public resources that way. That means that I do believe that the county leadership should now be thinking about and playing a front row role about where else could we extend greenways and paths in the county. I would love to see Rosman and Brevard connected by a multi-purpose trail; in fact, I would have liked to have seen that done before the Ecusta Trail to have it be in our county, and if you think about the water and sewer line that is connected between the two, it was an opportunity to do a dig once scenario. And we’ve seen that there’s funding available for trails, so that is an opportunity to bring funds to the county, use it in the county to connect our towns and especially to get ahead of the curve of potential housing developments that are going to be built out on Rosman Highway, businesses, so I’m a big fan of that.

Larry Chapman (R): It was mentioned I currently sit on the board, the committee that’s just been reorganized regarding the trail as the county’s representative. I was on the board when the county decided that we would not participate in that. Why did we make that decision? Nobody at that time could give us any idea what the cost was going to be to build it, which is now we know $47 million. Fortunately, the government came through with that, and today, nobody can tell you what it’s going to cost to operate and maintain that trail, but it’s being worked on. The trail’s going to happen. The money’s here. It’s going to be a benefit, I hope to the county. I don’t know. I was at a meeting. I don’t think it’s going to take a lot of the bicycles off the road because these professional bikers, they don’t ride a flat 19 miles. It will help with small families and that. Again, it’s going to happen. It’s going to be a good asset, but again nobody knows the long-term costs and, as the lady said there, who is going to do the security of it, the EMS of it, who is going to respond, how are you going to get there, and personal property rights of people adjacent to that to keep the people from wandering off the trail, which are already happening over in Henderson County, and that’s a big issue that’s got to be addressed, legally or however, but we’re just thankful that the feds came through with $47 million or it would never have happened, never happened, if we had to raise that kind of money.

Jason Chappell (R): In regards to this issue, I do think it’s quite interesting that the federal government has acknowledged that it was a taking issue and has to appropriate, to give a small amount of funds to those affected property owners. A taking issue; a taking of private property. Now there was some property owned outright by Norfolk and Watco and then on down the line, but there are still individual property owners that will be directly impacted and that’s a concern. That’s a concern that we, our citizens reach out to us regarding. I don’t think we should change our stance. There are still many unanswered questions, specifically for me. I know there are upcoming meetings with property owners. Hopefully they will get some answers that they need. There’s still upcoming decisions that’s going to have to be made that will have immediate and potentially drastic economic development consequences depending on exactly how that trail goes, depending on some of our businesses. That’s unanswered questions. The ongoing maintenance, the ongoing security, the ongoing upkeep. All of that are ongoing expenses that’s not been accounted for. I stand by my responses.

Rick Emaus (D): So not unlike our situation with HCA, this is a circumstance where we’re best off dealing where we are and looking forward rather than looking back. So the project is continuing; it is funded. There are numerous comparators, easily available, without driving too far that have a clear track record of what the maintenance is, what the law enforcement challenges are, how it can be done well by communities, municipalities and counties working together and it can be a huge, huge economic asset and a powerful driver for economic growth in this county. That’s what all those examples say. So, again, I have to look at this as a really clear example of are we operating from a scarcity mentality or are we reasonably informing ourselves and having the audacity to reach for something more, and something that’s proven. I had one in my backyard in Olympia, Washington, the Chehalis Western Trail. None of the problems that have been brought up were a challenge. The government settled with those property owners, and in that settlement it was, I don’t know if I can speak factually if this was an absolute fact, it was implied that the amounts were not worth the government fighting with each property owner, so they defaulted to settling just to get past it. So, to me, I think this private property owners issue has been settled. Would you rather have people walking a path behind your house or a train going at 2 o’clock in the morning? It is lower crime rates than any analogous parts of the community. I think we have to look at the upside and leverage the project for our community’s benefit. 

Teresa McCall (R): Well, the property owners’ concerns have not been dealt with and that’s a problem. There’s 10 percent of the deeds that have reverter rights in those deeds and it’s been stated to me that rail banking that has allowed this is a legal way to do something illegal. There are property owners whose property is being decimated; it’s cut in two, and they’re not being responded to by the city or by DOT as to how they are going to have control of their own property. So I don’t think that the county has any skin in this game, as far as these property owners concerns are not met or answered. We have a responsibility to listen to our citizens, and some who are great proponents of this trail fought against having to drive by a dollar store. But it’s OK for someone to have a trail cut through their front yard. So, I will stand on the side of the property owner as long as they need someone to stand on their side. That is a fundamental right, a constitutional right, of the American people. 

Bryan O’Neill (D): It’s kind of funny to hear how people’s properties are being cut in half. Well, there was a railroad track going through those properties. If that doesn’t cut the property in half, I don’t know what does. It’s also a kind of an oxymoron to say that they’re finding a legal way to something illegal. Exactly how do you do that? I’m not sure. But the original question was: should the county take a more active role? Well, the county had a chance to do that. They turned up their nose at writing a letter of support. No financial obligation. No involvement in maintenance. Just would you support it? No. Then they said they would. Then they said they wouldn’t again. I think that, not to be funny, but for the county to be involved in it, that train’s left the station. 

Joe Smith (D): Yes, this is a hot topic in our county, as all you are aware, but there’s one thing I want to point out, and I think these commissioners have forgotten it, but the city of Brevard is in the county. Always has been. There should be no division between the city and the county. They should be working together collaboratively figuring out the issues that affect us all. For those of us who live in the city, we kind of get left out by the county – oh, that’s a city thing. We don’t need to worry about it. And you listened to it tonight. The city of Brevard is in the county. I just want to repeat that. Property rights. All of these Republican commissioners, if you read their bios, speak strongly about property rights. As a property owner, I believe in property rights myself, but I want you to go back a couple of weeks and look at a county commissioners’ meeting when they were discussing items that they wanted to put forth to the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners, about stuff they wanted to see in the legislation and about limiting the amount of property that can go in conservation because property is limited in Transylvania County. Larry disagreed with it and said, no, I believe in a property owner’s rights to do what we he wants to do with his property. Cognitive dissonance in that room, you could have cut it with a knife. It was amazing. So, it seems like there is property rights most of the time unless it disagrees with something that I want. But again, the Ecusta Trail is an important boom. We know exactly what it’s going to cost because they’ve done it in multiple cities around the country. And I think it’s going to be a great thing for the city, for the county.

By John Lanier