I read with interest the Business Journal’s article on the state’s offer to buy the contested 690 acres next adjacent the Haw River State Park. Considering the BJ has editorialized against Bluegreen Corp.’s planned development, you have to give Justin Catanoso credit for telling the whole story:
It’s possible that none of this wrangling or controversy would have been necessary if state officials had been more diplomatic three years ago when first informing property owners in the area that they wanted to purchase their land to expand the new Haw River State Park.
Thaxton Richardson, who has used his 550 acres in the contested parcel for some 40 years to raise beef cattle, says the state got off on the wrong foot with him. The first time Richardson and many other property owners knew of the state’s interest in buying their land was when they were invited to a meeting in early 2004 with state officials.
“They laid out what they wanted, and it looked like a done deal,” Richardson recalls. “The impression they left was one of arrogance, as if they were entitled to our land. No one ever came to us before that meeting and asked what we would like to do.”
Maybe I’ve missed it, but that side of the story hasn’t gotten as much ink. I’m personally anxious to hear Isaacson & Co.’s argument as to why Patriot’s landing won’t be an ecological disaster. If it’s a sound argument, commissioners will have to consider it. If not, they’ll have to reject it. That is if a settlement isn’t reached before commissioners are shceduled to hear the case in December, which would be fine and good.
By the same token, you have to wonder where landowners like Richardson would be if the state was the only buyer in sight. I guess this is a case of the private sector pushing government to make a better offer to it citizens who, let’s not forget, were already paying their fair share.
