Great News on the Current
Posted by: wildernesswebb on Nov-25-13 6:49 PM (EST)
-- Last Updated: Nov-25-13 6:51 PM EST --
Was hoping something like this might happen after the owners lost it. I was hopeful this gem wouldn't get auctioned off to some rich out of state investor:
Great Products from the Buyers' Guide:
- Great News on the Current - wildernesswebb - Nov-25-13 6:49 PM
Great news! |
Posted by: kayamedic on Nov-25-13 7:17 PM (EST)
Now lets see how it is developed.
| || |
My thoughts as well|
Posted by: pblanc on Nov-25-13 8:31 PM (EST)
I am happy to see that the land is not subject to sale to the highest bidder.
But I also note that it has been more than 5 1/2 yrs since Missouri State Parks acquired the Current River State Park property and they still do not have a clear plan as to what to do with it, or a time table for its "development".
Some of us are getting up in years and the pace at which Missouri State Parks has developed the adjacent Current River State Park property does not argue well for me seeing this new acquisition open to the public within my life time.
Incidentally, it appears not everyone is thrilled with this new development judging by a couple of comments posted here:
| || |
Looks Like the Comments...|
Posted by: wildernesswebb on Nov-25-13 11:40 PM (EST)
...were probably from the friends of the former owners. Worst infestations of "River Dorks" was during Camp Zoe's "Festivals." You could here the noise on the river, miles away. I guess I'm a little old fashioned, but allowing drugs to be sold openly during these get togethers is why the owners lost the place. If I would do the same on my land, I would expect the same treatment and my neighbors would agree!
Part of the problems with the Current River State Park's prolonged opening had to do with indecision about what to do with the old buildings which have asbestos in them. Also, one of the parties in our MO legislature has had more interest in making the other party look bad than getting anything productive done. They're possibly worse than the politicians in D.C.?
I welcome having more area of Sinking Creek protected!
| || |
seize the day! |
Posted by: Coldspring on Nov-26-13 10:33 AM (EST)
They should seize the witches coven with the dog kennels higher up Sinking Creek next. It would make a nice retreat for naturalists and already has cabins and outdoor naturalist showers!
Then, take out the Cross Country Trail Rides. There must be something they're doing wrong. That land near Eminence would provide a perfect place for paddlers to congregate, and possibly have year-round running water for you to drive your Tesla electric SUV and park at a convenient site. Much better meetup site than way out in Pullite...so much closer to stores and restaurants!
| || |
Posted by: wildernesswebb on Nov-26-13 2:20 PM (EST)
....illegal drug use and trafficking is o.k. with you? Sorry, but it disgusts me. Those whom think it's a "Victimless" crime are delusional. Drug use/trafficking has irreparably damaged our country. Defense of it just plain disgusts me.
| || |
I know of at least one case|
Posted by: Boyscout on Nov-26-13 3:25 PM (EST)
I Know a bright hard working person who got into drugs at camp Zoe. She will be in prison for about 5+ more years.armed robbery assault and many more serous crimes .
| || |
Posted by: pblanc on Nov-26-13 10:48 AM (EST)
I have heard a lot of reasons for why the Current River State Park has been in limbo for more than 5 years including legal battles over road access issues, staff curtailments as a result of the economic downturn, bureaucratic friction between the NPS and Missouri State Parks, problems with waste water management, etc.
But surely lack of funds is somewhere on that list. According to this entry in the River Hills Traveler blog:
Missouri State Parks was still 3 million dollars short of the 8 million needed to upgrade the infrastructure as of April of this year.
Missouri State Parks has paid $640,000 for the new property not counting fees and professional services. In my experience, fees and professional services can come to a tidy sum when one is dealing with governmental transactions.
So my first concern is will this new transaction result in Missouri State Parks having stewardship of an even bigger property that they can afford to develop and manage even less well?
Now, keeping the land out of the hands of private developers is probably worth the cost even if this new property and that of the existing Current River State Park remain basically unusable to me for the rest of my life. But my second concern is the means by which this property was acquired.
There is already a legacy of hard feelings between locals and governmental agencies in general and the NPS in particular. Many locals feel landowners were forced to sell property at discounted rates when the US government appropriated only a little more than $100 per acre to purchase the private land that is now within the ONSR and many law suits resulted. Now, I am not a local nor do I know any locals who feel they were cheated by the US government. But I don't think that underlying current of bad feelings is good for the ONSR in general.
As I understand it, this property was seized from the former owner by action of the DEA using the "asset forfeiture" mechanism. I just can't imagine anything more likely to fan the flames of animosity in the hearts of locals who are mistrustful of governmental agencies that they feel are out to steal their lands than this. And I am concerned that won't be a good thing for the ONSR or those who visit it.
| || |
seize the day!|
Posted by: Coldspring on Nov-26-13 11:12 AM (EST)
Would you want to own property in the Current River Hills "SEIZURE OPPORTUNITY" Area? Would you want to purchase property in Shannon County, knowing outsiders are always lobbying for further environmental restrictions and regulations. Do you remember the White River Blueway proposal casts on the entire area w/o any prior discussion with the people who lived there? Can you imagine what it would have eventually resulted in? Those from the Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy, Pulltite Paddler Rendezvous, and Missouri Environment love to utilize the government to take the native hillbillies' land from them, as long as the river dorks, drunks and dopers are removed from under their nose!
| || |
White River Blueway|
Posted by: gremmie on Nov-27-13 5:55 AM (EST)
Your characterization of the White River Blueway, while in tone with the tea bagger reactionaries including your local House representatives, consists of nothing but lies and distortion. There was never any intent by the federal government to impose any kind of regulation on land use in the White River watershed.
Daniel Woodrell has a lot to work from in Ozark echo chamber. Tea baggers at the coffee shop, Republicans at the ballot box, socialists at the mailbox.
| || |
You mean, you can't see the difference|
Posted by: Guideboatguy on Dec-03-13 12:58 AM (EST)
-- Last Updated: Dec-03-13 1:18 AM EST --
... between how the neighboring riverway park land was acquired and how this particular property was acquired? Seriously? I agree with pblanc that this may fan the flames for government hatred among people like you, but clearly the fate of this property likely would have been the same even if there had never been any such thing as a National Scenic River. Like Sloop said, it was more than just a seizure, but even if that's all it were, the "logic" behind your statements implies that you would also believe that local police departments that are making opportune use of vehicles seized as a result of major drug arrests ("opportune" in the sense that they are reducing their operating costs and saving taxpayer money in the process) might somehow have the power to come and take your car too?
Oh, and in case you are opposed to the practice of seizing property that's in some way associated with illegal drug trafficking (and many people are), don't forget this is something that has always been most strongly supported by the far right, and not so much by the left, and opposed by the far left. In other words, it was the actions of "your own people" who made such actions legit, so be careful how broad a brush you paint with. But even ignoring that, a really quick way to paint with a narrower brush would be to actually recognize the difference between federal and state government, and the differences between the methods of acquisition for NPS land and this particular property.
| || |
Cold Spring, You Are Missing the Point|
Posted by: wildernesswebb on Nov-26-13 2:24 PM (EST)
I LIVE here in the Ozarks. If you think drug trafficking has done anything "Good" for our area you are delusional. No one is advocating taking the land away from LAW ABIDING folks. Sounds like you must have had a dog in this hunt?
| || |
Posted by: Coldspring on Nov-26-13 2:35 PM (EST)
-- Last Updated: Nov-26-13 2:38 PM EST --
No, I'm not missing the point. I don't care if he buried bodies there. We here the same story from you about river dorks, drunks, and dopers, constantly. That is all you harp about! If you could find a way to close the canoe rentals and trail rides, you would do it! They are afterall, hauling drugs in those canoe rental buses, and lots of drugs at that trailride! You are one who is advocating to restrict road access and motorboat access, as long as you have running water at your little Pulltite campground.
This land sale was a scam. Everyone knows it. If the property had been bought by a mining company or rich republican every one of you do-gooder environmentalists would be up in an outrage about how the land sale was manipulated and be filing lawsuits galore! But you got your way, one government agency sold it to another. Private property seizure is wrong. People are not as stupid as you think, and not everyone cares about little Pulltite Paddling Club that thinks they own the dang river!
| || |
It is our river|
Posted by: paddledad on Nov-26-13 3:32 PM (EST)
and yours. Do you not get that?
Do you think Eminence could use a few MORE stalls along the river?
Paddlers trying to kick out the trailriders. That's rich, really it is.
| || |
You hear things that aren't being said|
Posted by: Guideboatguy on Dec-03-13 2:06 AM (EST)
No one here has said a thing about generally keeping people off the river or being opposed to what the canoe liveries do. In fact, most paddlers I've met are completely in favor of accessibility made possible by private enterprise. Now, that doesn't mean we have to look favorably upon the so-called "river dorks", and this is where I believe your extremist mindset has caused you to become confused. What I think you fail to understand, is that the crude, lewd, and sometimes violent behavior of drunken river dorks need not go hand-in-hand with accessibility. If we created "cop-free zones" in city parks, we'd duplicate the situation on the river, but I bet that even you would not be in favor of such a thing happening in town. The people who make the river unfit for families on summer weekends only go there to behave that way because there's virtually no law enforcement. What they do would be illegal in any city (and not approved of by the populace in general either), and if there were law enforcement on the river to any significant degree, that kind of behavior wouldn't be the norm. In that case, I bet there'd still be plenty of people renting canoes in place of the trouble makers. I think an appropriate analogy, at least in terms of "government interference", is how banning smoking in bars was thought to be too much government interference which was bad for business, until the more savvy bar owners woke up to the fact that once smoking bans went into affect, they could actually cater to the majority of the population instead of the minority, and were able to make business boom like never before, with the bonus of working in a cleaner environment. I wouldn't be surprised if the same sort of thing would happen to business for the liveries if the park service cracked down on illegal behavior.
| || |
Well, I DO "Harp" About Drug Abuse....|
Posted by: wildernesswebb on Nov-26-13 2:55 PM (EST)
...and drunks, no doubt about it. I've seen both destroy a lot of lives, indeed even damage our country. I also complained when the Trail Rides started polluting my favorite stretch of bass fishing water a couple decades ago. Don't know that I've said one word about motor use? I also do not care for all the extra "Unofficial" accesses that have come into use the last few decades. As far as discouraging use? Nope. I have a good rapport with a few of the liveries and go out of my way to spend money there and encourage those with me to do the same.
You really seem to have a lot of animosity? I thought protection Sinkin Creek would be a good thing? So much so, I started a thread here about it. Never imagined it would be "Controversial?" I guess if it is going to continue to digress I'll delete it? I'll not continue to debate you here. Feel free to e-mail me.
| || |
I can't keep it in any longer|
Posted by: vic on Nov-27-13 1:36 PM (EST)
I can't keep it in any longer so please pardon this somewhat lengthy rant.
I have to admit that I have not gone to any of the meetings being held to get input on either the NPS OSNR plans nor the Missouri Department of Natural Resources-Division of State Parks meetings on the Current River State Park and related issues.
However, I can’t help but notice a trend in what I’ve been reading in press coverage of these meetings. It seems the most vocal local residents like the government protecting the riverways and adjoining land by preventing rich “outsiders” from buying up riverfront property and restricting their access to the river. This is possible because other taxpayers see the value in, and are willing to pay to protect, fragile and scenic riverways from overdevelopment that would permanently destroy the river environment that all of us cherish.
The impression I get from reading the press reports on these meetings is that the most vocal local residents like this protection of the riverways, as long as it does not restrict them from doing anything they want in those riverways; even if it results in degradation of those same riverways. At the same time they seem to resent those “outsiders” that travel hundreds if not thousands of miles to enjoy these riverways in accordance with practices that help preserve these same riverways.
It reminds me of the attitudes of many Iowa farmers when it comes to rural roads.
That shared attitude is that this belongs to ME, but everyone else should pay for it. And, since it is MINE, what the hell are all you “outsiders” doing coming here and using it. And why should you “outsiders” have any voice in how it is to be used, even though you are also paying for it. Oh, and by the way, as long as you are here, leave plenty of money behind and then get the hell out and keep your mouth shut.
I used to work on road issues for about 15 years when I worked for the Iowa State Association of Counties representing elected County Supervisors and their appointed County Engineers in the legislature.
The farmers did not want to pay any gas tax or vehicle registration fees to the Road Use Tax Fund that is used to maintain the roads, even though about 32% of the Road Use Tax Fund goes to the counties for the rural secondary road system. They also want to exempt some of their property, and reduce the taxable value of the remaining property, that is subject to property tax which is also used to pay for the rural secondary road system.
At the same time they want more of the rural secondary roads to be paved. They want their roads to be well graveled and graded. They want their roads cleared of snow almost immediately after the snow has fallen. They also want no weight limit restrictions on any of the hundreds of small rural road bridges that were never designed to carry the loads farmers are now placing on them. And when those bridges inevitably fail they want them immediately replaced.
In essence they want all the benefits of the system to accrue to them, but the want others to pay for it.
In addition, they do not like “outsiders” traveling on “their” rural roads. I live on one of those rural roads. When driving my car instead of my pickup there have been many times I was almost forced off our own gravel road by farm implements, pickups, and other farm vehicles even when there was obviously room for both vehicles to pass. The expressions on their faces clearly sent the message “what are you doing on MY road.”
So, in many ways these Ozark riverways are a lot like Iowa’s rural county roads. They are owned by ALL of us. They are paid for by ALL of us (with more of that payment coming from “outsiders” than from local residents.) They are intended to be used responsibly by ALL of us. They also need to be protected and maintained so those that follow us can also benefit from them.
| || |
The ONLY people |
Posted by: sloopsailor on Dec-02-13 5:06 PM (EST)
who think the land forfeiture was a scam are those that enjoyed the drugs, etc. at Camp Zoe. It was a KNOW location for drug purchases at events, generally a bad scene.
It wasn't stolen, it was negotiated. He had other options, he chose this one. Personally I think ALL land bordering a National Scenic River should belong to the PEOPLE, not an individual or a company and yes the "River Dorks" are a serious problem. They trash the river and the rive banks, make it almost impossible for a family to have a good time without having to put up with lude and crude acts, littering on a gross scale and rough treatment at times by drunk, out of control asses. For those of you that want to party.. GREAT go somewhere where the PUBLIC does not have to deal with you. If I were the patrol, I would hit the rivers hard, impose MAXIMUM fines, arrest when possible. Rack the fines up into the thousands of dollars, MAKE IT HURT TO BE A JERK! OK.. That's my opinion. Good Riddance to ZOE drug park.
| || |
You Said It....|
Posted by: wildernesswebb on Dec-02-13 7:42 PM (EST)
....so much better than I, Jeff. Thank you!
| || |
Posted by: Boyscout on Dec-03-13 1:41 PM (EST)
The obnoxious loud behaver invite the Dorks to party at your place.tell the. I don't mind how bad you behave.even when I need to get some peace and quiet.or time with the family.
| || |