Web hosting Custom Email SiteBuilder

CHAPTER 13

CONFUSION OVER STATE-GOALS

THE "STRING OF PEARLS" CONTROVERSY

The first statewide planning hassles of the 1960's was a controversy over a proposed recreation plan. It began in February 1965 when Governor Philip Hoff announced that the State of Vermont had purchased the discontinued Rutland Railroad right-of-way (ROW) from Burlington through the islands of Grand Isle County to the Canadian border for $20,000. Governor Hoff stated that the purchase presented a great opportunity for development of recreational facilities and asked his Interagency Committee on Natural Resources to study the ROW and recommend its best use in the public interest.

he Interagency Committee consisted of the Commissioners of Agriculture, Fish and Game, Forests and Parks Water Resources, and the Director of Recreation. Planning, highways, development, and the University of Vermont also were represented at some meetings. In 1965, this committee functioned as an information exchange, not as a governor's cabinet. Several commissioners were appointed for 4 years by lay boards. The governor was elected for only 2 years. Hence, some commissioners felt responsible to their boards, not to the governor, and expected to outlast the governor in office. This setup was established by a legislature that was fearful of too much power in the hands of one person. It was later changed by Governor Davis to a cabinet system which focuses responsibility and accountability on the governor. The Interagency Committee was a forum for debate -- not an efficient policy-forming group. On the Rutland Railway ROW, the Committee was split. Ferry Merrill, Commissioner of Forests and Parks, and his Board of Forests and Parks took the position that the ROW should be returned to adjacent landowners. He argued that the original acquisition by the Rutland Railroad was an easement, not a fee-simple purchase and discontinuance of use required that it be returned to the original owners. Howard Jeffrey, Director of Recreation, agreed with Governor Hoff. He held that the State had full ownership and the ROW should be used for public recreation -- a trail and public access to Lake Champlain.

The various factions took immediate action. Commissioner Merrill persuaded the Interagency Committee to postpone the deadline for a decision to September 1, 1966. In the interim, he got a bill passed by the legislature to authorize the sale of "unneeded" portions of the Rutland Railroad ROW to adjacent property owners (See box). Director of Recreation Jeffrey assembled a team of UVT recreation researchers- Jack Lindsay, James Sykes, and myself -- and began a planning study of the ROW. Richard Rubino, Director of the State Planning Office, commenced a third study to develop a compromise plan.

The Jeffrey Plan

Recreation Director, Jeffrey, and his team surveyed the ROW by foot, mapped the potential recreational sites, and studied other states' use of abandoned rail lines. At the end of the summer, they published a 42-page report; "A Champlain Pathway," describing three altercative development plans. Following are the three alternatives presented in Jeffrey's report.

Alternative #1 - Conventional Recreation Development

Conventional recreation development is the lowest level of development, in, terms of public-private investment. It is also lowest in terms of public returns in increased tax base, and private returns in increased jobs and income. It would consist of developing, for recreation purposes, those areas of the rail road right-of-way that actually touch the shoreline, i.e., (1) Colchester Point, (2) Allen Point, (3) Bow Arrow Point in Grand Isle (a fishing access), (4) South Alburg, and (5) East Alburg to Rouses Point crossing.

Conventional development implemented can be without any significant expansion in present rates of financing, personnel, planning, or management.

Alternative 2 -The "String of Pearls"

The railroad right-of-way provides an opportunity for a "string of pearls" development. This is a higher level of development than conventional development and would consist of a string. of multiple-use recreation areas tied together by a greenbelt pathway to provide recreationists (hikers, hikers, horseback riders, nature lovers, photographic hobbyists, and people exercising or relaxing) with a throughway connecting the recreation areas.

The advantages of the "string of pearls" plan are:

(1) It could be carried out with minimal cost, because of the facts of the present ownership of the railroad right-of-way by the state and'the federal subsidies available for purchase, planning, and development.

(2) It would lead to further and much more intensive private investment for recreation facilities -- motels, restaurants, resorts, marinas, etc.

(3) It would begin to become regionally known and start to attract tourists to the pathway as well as to the region and the state.

Alternative #3--A National Park

The third and highest potential level of recreation development would be to designate the whole of the county, plus Colchester and some of the Franklin County and New York shores, as a park area. Development of this superpark would not require public purchases of any more than 7 percent of the total land area. Taking the Cape Cod National Seashore or Acadia National Park as examples, we will see that superparks may be developed on the basis of a relatively small proportion of publicly-owned land with a relatively large proportion of private investment for commercial, tourist, and recreation facilities.

Development would consist of the string of pearls development, plus full development of all the land, water, and scenic resources of the area to provide recreation and tourist attractions. This would include large parks with interpretive programs, scenic roads and overlooks, a marine museum or aquarium, self-guided nature trails along the right-of-way, picnic areas, and multiple-purpose public access to both scenery and water. It would also involve a park commission authority which would zone land and water use; control signs; promote, foster, and safeguard scenery and natural attributes and develop an attractive park-like atmosphere for the region.

Comprehensive recreation development of the area would stimulate the highest amount of private investment in tourist and recreation facilities, and would lead to the greatest increase in the tax base, jobs, income, and regional economic development.

A superpark would receive national attention and start to draw several times the present number of tourists to the region and to the state. All cities and recreation businesses in the state would profit significantly by the existence of a nationally recognized park in this area.

A superpark would require a greater public investment than is now planned even in the stepped-up plans to participate in the BOR development program. It would require new legislation to set up the planning and development of a park commission to provide for regional and scenic toning, and to provide for close cooperation among the state natural resource agencies.

Click on map for oversized image!

Table 1. Alternative Levels of Public Recreation Development of the Railroad Right of way and Surrounding Area

The national park proposal was based on a discussion of the possibility of a national park in Grand Isle County that I had with Chester C. Brown, Chief, Division of National Park System Studies, Washington, D.C. In the spring of 1965, the NPS made a ground reconnaissance visit to Grand Isle. No further action was taken, however, as the prerequisite of local support was not found.

State Planning Office Plan

The State Planning Office worked closely with the Department of Forests and Parks and produced a seven-page report, "The Recommended Utilization of the Former Rutland Railroad Right-of-Way in Grand Isle County." This report listed the holdings that should be released for sale to adjoining property owners and those that should be retained by the state for public use. Nine sites were recommended for retention for further study and possible future public use. Five sections were recommended for sale to municipalities, adjoining owners, or others.

The Public Debate

With the publication of these two reports by Jeffrey and the State Planning Office, a public debate was joined. The debate was carried in news columns, editorial columns, letters to the editor, public meetings, and in the State Interagency Committee. The Burlington Free Press published a feature story with a map on September 15, 1965. The next day, a lead editorial supported the Jeffrey plan. A few days later, several letters to the editor appeared both for and against he Jeffrey plan. A letter by Robert N. Spear, Jr. (founder of the local chapter of the National Audubon Society supported public recreation development. The Suburban List, a weekly paper, covered the issue with lead editorials, a long letter to the editor by William R. Gregg, Jr., President, Lake Champlain Islands Association, other letters and front-page news stories. The Vermont Sunday News columnist, Fred Richmond, supported Jeffrey's recreational use plan (October 10, 1965) in his column.

Public meetings were also prominent. Around 60 persons met in the North Hero School on October 6, in response to a call from the Grand Isle County Chamber of Commerce  to discuss the Champlain Pathway. The people present approved and signed a resolution: "Be it resolved that it is the consensus of opinion of the people of Grand Isle County here assembled that the former Rutland Railroad right-of-way now owned by the State of Vermont should, except such land as is needed for highway purposes or used for utility lines, be sold back to the abutting landowners at a fair and reasonable price by the state so the land can be utilized for private enterprise and be taxable in each town." A month later, a large number of Grand Isle County residents presented a petition to the Interagency Committee asking that all the Rutland Railroad ROW land be sold back to abutting landowners except that which is needed for highways (Free Press, November 3, 1965, page 11).

One of the most pertinent subjects of debate was the cost of development. The Champlain Pathway proposal contained no cost estimates as it was only a conceptual plan. Commissioner Perry Merrill made his own estimates of the cast of the Jeffrey plan. He assumed that more land would have to be purchased and developed at a total cost of $7,249,500. This figure was rounded up to $10 million and reported as the "cost" of Jeffrey's proposed recreation development. The authors of "A Champlain Pathway" were taken back by this amendment to their report. They quickly developed their own estimates of the total costs of planned development. It was less than $1 million over a period of several years. This lower estimate, however, was not widely reported and failed to overtake Commissioner Perry Merrill's exaggerated estimate.

Discussion of the park proposal was not limited to Grand Isle County. The second annual Governor's Conference on Recreation in Montpelier featured a discussion of proposed uses of the Rutland Railway ROW in Grand Isle County. Four speakers -- Malcolm I. Bevins, John Lindsay, Frederic Sargent, of the University of Vermont, and State Recreation Director, Howard Jeffrey -- spoke in favor of recreational development. Five instructors at Green Mountain College in Poultney formed a group called "Save the Grand Isle Right-of-Way (SGIROW), lso in support of public recreation development. Robert L. Morway, a Burlington resident and a North Hero landowner, wrote letters to the editor of the Free Press. He claimed that SGIROW stood for "Selling Grand Isle Rights Out the Window." The Colchester Lions Club had two speakers present pro and con arguments: Frederic Sargent, a co-author of the "String of Pearls" proposal; and Robert Morway, of North Hero. Perry Merrill, Commissioner of Forests and Parks was also busy presenting his case against the proposal. At the annual meeting of the Lake Champlain Islands Chamber of Commerce in the South Hero Inn, October 19, 1966, he spoke on "The Broken String of Pearls."

Both sides of the debate had strong arguments. The following: arguments were presented in the public debate.

Arguments for the "String of Pearls"

Jeffrey:

(1) Other states (Connecticut, Maryland, and Wisconsin) have just spent millions to acquire and/or develop railroad ROW's for recreational purposes.

(2) Parks and recreational facilities and public open space attract industry.

(3) The alternative may include tacky string developments.

(4) There is a shortage of recreation land in Grand Isle County. No town in Grand Isle County has any public access of its own to the lake.

(5) Public lake access and recreational facilities would serve the people of Vermont and future generations.

Arguments Against the "String of Pearls"

The arguments against recreational development were presented by three: R. B. Ellison, a Director of the Grand Isle County Development Association; William R. Gregg, Jr., President, Lake Champlain Islands Ql.amber of Commerce, and Martha Pearl of Grand Isle:

(1) Park development was not wanted by local people.

(2) Present state parks do not provide swimming access.

(3) We prefer private tax-paying land to state tax exempt land,

(4) We strongly support democratic self-government -- not experts telling us what we need.

(5) Grand Isle County already has two state parks, but local residents are not allowed to swim or picnic in them.

(6) Each of the five towns in the county now has a state fishing access area.

(7) We prefer economic development through realty sales and seasonal visitors, not parks for transient tourists.

(8) Public parks of the Vermont State Park variety do not generate much economic activity.

(9) If the state government is really interested in economic development of Grand Isle County, there are a lot of things they can do -- eliminate water pollution, clear channels under bridges, improved highway signs, improved roads, bridges, etc., etc.

The Interagency Committee Debate and Decision

The debate in the State Interagency Committee on Natural Resources was dramatic and well-reported by the press. Commissioner Merrill continuously urged quick sale of the ROW to adjoining .landowners. At a November 2 meeting, he revealed that his Department had already transferred two lots to the Vermont Fish and Game Department. He pressed for adoption of the Central Planning Office recommendations. Commissioner of Agriculture Reed H. Rexford urged the Committee to hold the ROW until further studies were made. Other commissioners argued to take time to study alternatives, to hold public meetings, and to retain land for recreational use. The arguments were complicated by personality clashes between some members of the Interagency Committee (The Free Press, November 3, 1965, "State Recreation Program Suffers -- Merrill-Macomber Feud Hurts"; The Free Press, November 5, 1965, "Hoff Seen in Midst of Recreation Battle"). The state government arguments became quite heated.

The Interagency debate continued hot for several weeks. It included claims and counter-claims about the property rights of the state, the recreational needs of the public, and the wishes of the people of Grand Isle County.

In December 1965, the Interagency Committee voted to recommend that Governor Hoff follow the plan drawn up by the Central Planning Office. The proposal was adopted. This action put disposition of the ROW into Commissioner Merrill's hands. Commissioner Merrill's protege and successor, Robert B. Williams, carried out the sales. In the February 28, 1967 Free Press, 15 parcels were offered for sale at $50 per acre.

But, the hassle wasn't completely over. The Conservation Committee of the Green Mountain Audubon Society watched the sale procedures to see if the condition that towns get first option to buy was followed. Discovering a potential violation of this requirement in Colchester, they stopped a proposed sale just before Commissioner Williams signed the agreement with adjacent property owners. This action permitted Colchester to acquire lakefront acreage for a town access.

Postscript

The proposal for a recreation development may have been 15 years premature. In 1980, State Representative Ray Paquette announced that he would propose to the State Legislature a bill to create a bicycle route 26 miles long following Route 2 through Grand Isle County (Burlington Free Press, December 10, 1980). Another news item stated that Gerald Frazier, Chairman of the Grand Isle Town Recreation Committee was planning a recreation park. Frazier said the committee is looking for 15 acres. Lakeshore would be preferable, but Frazier said it probably would not be available, so long range plans include the addition of a swimming pool.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Central Planning Office and the Department of Forests and Parks, report of recommended utilization of the former Rutland Railroad Right-of-Way in Grand Isle County. October 11, 1965. 8 pp. mimeo.

Jeffrey, Howard, John J. Lindsay, Frederic O. Sargent, and James C. Sykes. A Champlain Pathway, Burlington, Vt. Resources Research Center. 39 pp. mimeo. August 1965.

Jeffrey, Howard. Vermont Director of Recreation, Champlain pathway testimony, North Hero. November 19, 1965.

Moore, Dorothy L., and Richard G. Rubino. Preliminary study of Grand Isle County characteristics and potentials, as part of state land use plan. Montpelier, Vt., Central Planning Office, October 1965.

Sargent, Frederic O. Abandoned railway ideal for trail. The Burlington Free Press, May 18, 1967.

Twenty-six-mile bicycle route suggested for U.S.2 in Grand Isle County. Burlington Free Press, December 10, 1980.

Go to:

• Rail Trails in NH, VT, & ME

• Rail Trails in Vermont

• Champlain Rail-Trail