|
- |
I'D LIKE TO RESPOND to your recent
Contrary to the cartoon, there are good reasons for not opening the trail to the public, and I have not seen credible counter-arguments in these pages or elsewhere. Mr. Fedorchak concedes the potential for crime along the trail but says we shouldn't be deterred, because some selected studies reassure us that the crime rate on the trail may not be any higher than the rate prevalent in the neighborhood already. Doesn't he realize how silly this argument sounds?
I already have my hands full in dealing with the general public at my King George property, mainly in the form of bags of litter that I pick up along the road frontage, but also including cases of trespassing. The trail would only open a new front in this ongoing but one-sided battle.
If any advocate of the trail thinks that exceptional and increasingly rare surroundings will somehow instill a heightened sense of responsibility, I'd be happy to give him a tour of campsites along the Rappahannock River, where the amount and variety of litter might be a revelation. Too many individuals feel they have a God-given right to dispose of their trash wherever and whenever they please.
Also, it is only after owning property for many years, in King George and elsewhere, that I am no longer surprised that so many have such little respect for private property. To cite a recent example at another location, someone ignored a closed gate and other obvious signs of private ownership in order to gain access to the river. Does this make him a "serious criminal" in your book? Perhaps not, but it may be of interest that the trespasser turned out to be a teacher in the schools of Spotsylvania!
Adjoining my property there is a large pond, which sits just below the railbed. This will prove to be an irresistible magnet. (If I were my neighbor, I'd be loading up with lots of liability insurance.) Even the conscientious few, willing to observe boundaries, will have a hard time. When the railroad was constructed in the 1940s, the right-of-way was demarcated by concrete monuments that have long since become obscured by vegetation.
Your editorial makes the point that "if Mr. Brickley wants to give people access to the trail, he has a perfect right to do so." Fair enough, but it is equally true that he is liable for the conduct of his "guests." I am sure Mr. Brickley is aware of his obligations under this arrangement, but, if not, he will have a chance
There is more than a whiff of hypocrisy emanating from the arguments of trail proponents. They are secure in their knowledge that after a strenuous hike they can return to the relative privacy of their comfortable suburban homes, perhaps to cool off in the shade of the rear deck and to enjoy the paper. It is easy to imagine the squeals of displeasure were they to read an announcement that soon a pedestrian trail would be pushed through their neighborhood, drawing along with it a steady stream of strangers ogling the backyard activities.
I'd like to conclude by taking a longer-range view of the matter. The editorial decries "hideous Prince William County" and says "Mr. Brickley thinks now is the time to preserve some pristine land" in King George. Well, converting the old railroad bed will do nothing, by itself, to preserve this "pristine land" and may paradoxically hasten the day when King George does indeed resemble Prince William. Here is the reason:
The countryside through which the trail passes looks the way it does today because adjoining property owners (at least some of us) have not sold out for a quick buck. How it looks in the future is very much in our hands, the same people whose wishes would be ignored by open-ing the trail to the public.
My property is covered by mature trees, and I realize that I have something worth saving. Not only are the majestic trees worthy objects of preservation in themselves, but many species of flora and fauna require for their survival a mature, relatively undisturbed woodland, and this whole ecosystem would vanish if the trees were harvested.
Isn't it ironic? There are those so impressed with the results of our conservation practices that they now want to reward us by robbing us of our privacy. I'm surely not speaking just for myself when I say that if the trail becomes a reality, I'd be more susceptible, out of frustration from such treatment, if nothing else, to the incessant blandishments of developers, investors, and lumbermen. Thus, in the not-too-distant future, a typical trail user may, on his way to the trailhead, drive past seemingly endless sterile subdivisions, of the type which blight our neighbors to the north, and from there slog mile after sunbaked mile through a landscape now mostly denuded of trees and devoid of wildlife (except for barking dogs), so that he can stare at the backsides of those same McMansions.
What then I ask you, promoters of the trail, will be so special about that experience?
GORDON BARKER lives in King George County.
