Trending
The future holds the answer of how the issue of a proposed trail network on Altoona Water Authority land in the Sugar Run Road area will shake out.
The only thing certain at this time is that much discussion should be accorded the idea before a final decision is rendered.
The threat of a lawsuit has been issued by a landowner in that area regarding the prospect of noise emanating from the trail, although there could be other concerns as well. Meanwhile, existing support for the trail idea includes the argument that the proposal would be for the best, but in what ways merits further probing and discussion as well.
Already it is clear that the trail proposal will not be an easy issue to decide. It might be easier if there were another area available that did not have possible adverse effects on land and the landowners who spent considerable sums to live peacefully surrounded by nature, not the busyness of urban or suburban surroundings of many homes and considerable traffic.
This editorial is not intended to take sides regarding the issue, since there might be alternatives that have not yet been identified or aired. Rather, the decision-makers will have to weigh all of the information and possibilities associated with what has been put forth plus whether there are or are not viable alternatives available.
Perhaps a peek outside of the issue will help others not involved directly to understand the bases that have been argued up to now.
Consider the issue of zoning: Efforts to enact zoning ordinances usually are met with opposition from people who want to be able to do whatever they want to do with their properties.
Zoning supporters counter with the point that without zoning regulations a slaughterhouse could be erected next to a multimillion-dollar home, and the homeowner might not have any recourse in terms of opposing it.
Then consider things of a smaller scale that aggravate people who should be able to enjoy their lives and properties without what should be easily avoidable nuisances, but many times aren't. We're thinking here of situations like other people's pets being allowed to use the properties in question as "bathrooms," or young or not-so-young people who taunt or otherwise destroy the peace of other families around them while their parents and others responsible for their conduct "look the other way" for whatever reason.
Victims in those smaller circumstances can be likened to the people who fear disruptions to their lives if the trail in question materializes.
Then there are the potentials for disruptions to the water authority's land itself, such as by littering, other forms of irresponsible conduct, whatever.
In addition, acknowledge and sympathize with the people whose lives are turned upside-down as the result of eminent domain, which one of Webster's dictionaries describes as "a right of a government to take private property for public use by virtue of the superior dominion of the sovereign power over all lands within its jurisdiction." Eminent domain is not an issue in this case.
Amid the other possible points of debate, don't fail to acknowledge the serious issue of trespass. One opponent of the trail being considered said people already trespass on her land in the Sugar Run area, and that the publicity that would surround creation of a trail network above her property would encourage additional trespassing.
Whether motorcycles in the woods would increase fire risk also has been questioned.
Again, there is much to discuss -- potentially good as well as potentially bad -- about what is proposed. Thus, there is no room for haste.