| Author | Message | ||
     toitsown Posted From: 67.201.148.20 |
Did you all know that TWICE, not once, but TWICE the citizens of BRA voted by a majority to apply for the orphaned roads status in this community? Both times the vote was squelched by civic board members who refused to put the application in? We missed the boat folks. Shannolndale got their applicatitons in. They got many of their roads paved. We got hosed folks, we got hosed... | ||
| Teri Dutton - Persimmon Lane Posted From: 170.215.50.151 |
Board members refused to put the application in? | ||
| Teri Dutton - Persimmon Lane Posted From: 170.215.152.27 |
According to Nancy L. Samples, Administrative Services Manager of the Office of the Secretary/Highways Commissioner,Department of Transportation/Division of Highways roads can still being considered for inclusion even though the deadline has passed. Chip or Eddie could you please tell me what Blue Ridge Acre's status is on this topic? Thanks | ||
| Chip Gallo Posted From: 170.215.143.123 |
I don't know. The best person to ask is the president of the Civic Association, Bill Ramsey. He doesn't read this message board so give him a call. | ||
| toitsown Posted From: 67.201.148.136 |
Well golly, the board didn't mention that our roads could still be considered. I wonder if it just slipped their minds... | ||
| Don J. Orser Posted From: 209.190.166.19 |
Hi Toitsown and Teri Dutton and others! My two cents with regard to the WV DOT taking over the roads in Blue Ridge Acres: There is/was two "orphan roads" statutes. The first, passed in 1985, is known as the Dale Manuel orphan roads bill as he was the primary one who sponsored it. It basically underscores the WV DOT/Div of Highways authority to take over "unclaimed" roads. The second was passed in 1998 and expired Dec 31, 2001. Application under this statute was easier as it regularized the application process. It also got considerable support from Gov. Underwood in terms of funding. At any time the WV DOT/Div of Highways is authorized at their own discretion by WV statute to accept into the state system any roads they decide to do so as long as the owner of the road does not object and/or is willing to sign a deed of conveyance. This is what happened in Shannondale and in fact the 1998 orphan roads bill resulted from the actions of those who participated in that effort. (I was on the Shannondale Roads Association Board at the time and it was a major effort by many people.) At the same time, the WV DOT/DOH may elect to decline inclusion of any proffered road. During the time the 1998 orphan road bill was available something called "BRA property Owners Coalition for State Acquisition" spearheaded the effort to get our roads into the state system and obtained a majority twice under rules set up by the then current BRACA Board. The last effort resulted in signatures from 80% of all property owners. However, the property owners are not the owners of the roads, but rather the BRACA is and the then current BRACA Board elected to ignore the results until March of 2001 when Gov. Underwood was replaced by Gov. Wise, who then put a moratorium on the orphan roads program. (Wise was elected in November, 2000.) I believe the minutes of the year 2000 BRACA annual meeting, part of the mailing for the 2001 BRACA annual meeting, documents the refusal of the then current Board to make application the WV DOT/DOH. The minutes also reflect that a vote was taken at that meeting with a majority voting in favor. (If you wish, I can give you a copy.) On March 4, 2001 the newly elected Board voted to make application and a letter requesting inclusion went out March 7, 2001 to the District Five Office. (I personally wrote the letter.) You can take a look at the resolution passed on March 4, 2001 by looking at the BRACA web page under resolutions. However, before inclusion occurred, the moratorium had been imposed by Wise, and the matter has not been for pursued for several years. Before you condemn the BRACA Board for their refusal, you should understand the arguments on both sides. Without sufficient funding, we might be left with little maintenance from the state and without the legal authority to assess, collect and spend money ourselves. Gov. Wise is more supportive of social programs than in maintaining/ improving state infrastructure, and without sufficient funding the WV DOT/DOH cannot do justice to their responsibilities. Perhaps this will change with a new governor and at some future time it might make sense to pursue the matter. After living here for nearly thirty years, my personal opinion is that we should turn our roads over to the state but only after we have insured ourselves that we can continue to legally assess, collect and spend some amount so as to be able to do things for ourselves that the state cannot or does not do. This could be tied in with the formation of a single homeowners association based on the future and not the historic artifacts of the past. This issue is probably of more significance in the long run than the roads issue. Another issue is that the roads, as long as they belong to the BRACA, are under our control and for example, we can pass regulations and rules regarding there use and in particular the use of RV's/4-wheelers. If the roads are made public, we would lose that control. However, if we don't agree on enforceable rules and regulations and make them known, then by default anything goes and we may as well have the WV DOT/DOH take the roads. For example, a sign to the affect that Blue Ridge Acres is a “RV controlled Area” together with some readily available written rules and regulations would allow us to have some control over RV’s. If there are no rules and regulations we can hardly expect them to be obeyed. Thirty years ago it was possible to carry on a public discourse with differing opinions within the Blue Ridge Acres Community without personal recriminations about a speakers motives or intelligence etc. I suspect that any discussion of the roads today will also generate its share of unproductive and acrimonious comments which only causes sensible people to abstain altogether with nothing being done. In short, there is only “us”, there is no “them” to blame. For a better BRA, Don J. Orser | ||
| Chip Gallo Posted From: 170.215.143.123 |
Thanks for the information, Don. Two comments - I believe that on the "new" side of the community, the property owner owns the road and not the BRACA. BRACA has an easement that allows them to do their maintenance work. Second, there is no guarantee that if the state takes over a road that is unpaved, they will do anything more than maintain it in that state. Upgrades are at their discretion and based upon their budget and priorities. With Len Erickson going to a support facility in Washington State, we were given some of his papers. These included the original BRACA paperwork, which was interesting reading. I want to image some of the files and put them up on the web site. | ||
| Don J. Orser Posted From: 209.190.166.19 |
You are right about Sections 14-16: Ownership is to the middle of the 30 foot easement. As I remember we had almost all owners agreeable to signing an agreement to allow the state to maintain, although there were some holdouts. The technical term for the owner of the land is “servient tenement” while those having the right to traverse are called the “dominant tenement class”, and in the case of BRA, this means all owners of lots and their guests. (Note that there is no Section 13: apparently Conklyn succumbed to superstition.) You are also right about any upgrades. However, the DOT/DOH has paved something like ten miles of Shannondale and some of that three or four times, e.g., Red Bird, Mad Hatter and parts of Johnnycake, none of which was paved before. However, it remains to be seen what will happen in the future. I’m not sure what “original paperwork” you are referring to. If it relates to the state takeover issue, I have most of the originals in MS Word and they would load much faster than scanned versions. But maybe you are referring to the BRACA charter etc. Don J. Orser | ||
| Chip Gallo Posted From: 206.229.31.24 |
Don - among other things the Articles of Incorporation for BRACA were in Len's papers. | ||
| Teri Dutton - Persimmon Road Posted From: 65.73.12.168 |
Don, I truly appreciate your taking the time to “get me up to speed” on the situation with the Orphaned Roads Program. What is the status on this situation? Do you know? I don’t have a problem paying the road maintenance fees and have done so since moving here; I do have a problem with wasted time and money spent on dumping more and more gravel on a road when it ultimately washes or wears away. When the gravel doesn’t wash away, the road traffic continually spits up dust which finds its way into our homes and ultimately can cause respiratory problems. I work at home four days a week and notice that very few residents in this neighborhood abide by the stated speed limit – which obviously can not be enforced. With regard to the four-wheelers and dirt bikes that frequent our neighborhood, personally, I don’t have a problem with them as I remember what it was like to be that age. However, to suggest that we are able to enforce a code or law to keep them off our roads is comical. (no offense) I realize it is at the discretion of the state to either pave the roads or not, however there is a much greater chance of having the roads paved if they are adopted into the program since BRA has decided ultimately not to do so. (The area of which I am referring to is Persimmon Road) I would just like to know how to get this up for vote once again and to actually get the BRACA to follow through. Any suggestions? | ||
| Eddie Pauls Posted From: 63.188.104.230 |
I am not aware of any deliberate action by the board to squash any applications for orphan roads to the appropriate authorities. I seem to remember that 1 vote was taken at a yealy meeting at some time and the result was to not apply. I may be wrong. Later, I seem to remember being told at a a meeting that the authority had used it's budget for orphaned roads and applications were no longer being accepted. Again I may be wrong.. |