Median danger?
Editor:
On Monday, Oct. 26, a letter titled "The King Street Widening - How It Will Affect You"was hand delivered to residents in the Farthing Street and Chestnut Drive neighborhoods.
The letter, regrettably, was not signed.  It brought to light many of the concerns that I, and most of my neighbors, have about the King Street intersection.
The letter points out that the King Street widening project includes a concrete median, at least four feet wide for the length of the project. 
This median will eliminate all but a right hand turn exiting from Farthing Street or Chestnut Drive. It will require residents traveling back to their homes in this neighborhood to go past these streets and turn around in the New Market area or use Tracy Circle via Hardin Street.
The letter further urges residents to contact their elected officials for a remedy.
While the letter addresses the inconvenience of this median (the ONLY such median in Boone) it fails to point out other critical effects.
The Farthing/Chestnut neighborhood is a series of cul-de-sacs that connect to these streets and then to King Street as the only reasonable, safe, access. 
All emergency services, EMS, Rescue, Fire and Police respond to the Farthing/Chestnut neighborhood from the west. 
The median is designed and intended to prevent vehicles (including emergency vehicles) from crossing.
This median will delay emergency response thereby posing a life-safety problem.
As a 25-year resident of the Farthing/Chestnut neighborhood, my access to and from the area from King street has been a challenge.
At least two petitions have been sent requesting a traffic light at Farthing Street.
A traffic light is the safest, most cost effective way of resolving the issue.  Another cost effective method might be eliminating the median from the project and including a turning lane in its place.
Finally, to the person(s) who wrote the letter and all Farthing/Chestnut residents interested in supporting this initiative are invited to contact me at fandcneighbors@Gmail.com  to join together to further this effort.
J.F. Heffren
Boone


A future in farming?
Editor:
We attended the meeting for "Watauga Farming for the Future."
This name, which the facilitator claimed to not know whence it came, is the same name used in county commissioner Kinsey's "Citizens' Comprehensive Plan for the Future."
The facilitators came armed with statistics that farmers know first hand. It didn't take long to realize the meeting wasn't about farmers. 
What's new about that? 
The Farmland Preservation Plan promised protection to farmers against nuisance suits and guaranteed condemnation public hearings.
The Farmland Preservation Plan requires a 10-year conservation easement in exchange for these empty promises. 
The government agents who use an advisory board of unsuspecting farmers to sell their empty promises to other unsuspecting farmers know the law states: "a county may require"the disclosure of farmland in the proximity of a buyer; and they know the county's plan not only doesn't require it; there is not one instance where the disclosure has occurred since the inception of the plan and they protect those who should make the disclosure.  
And, the only prominent sign is where title-search clerks do their searches for real-estate attorneys.  We have had our belly full of public hearings. 
We all know, in my opinion, commissioners make up their minds before public hearings. Now, the same governmental agency peddling the Farmland Preservation hoax is selling a new plan. 
Obviously not for the farmer, when they use the same name coined in the county's draft plan for zoning rural agricultural land. But, they didn't say in the name of farmer protection; they said in the name of farmland protection. They admit to view shed mapping and "so what?"as they say.
One of the young community gardeners offered to purchase our land; but, arrogantly wanted to purchase it at farm value price. Isn't that what it is all about? Zoning rural farms to devalue the land?  We know all about the decline in farming. We have been living it. The course was set years ago. Tourism and the university are driving the future.
So, we throw in the towel, sell out and we go where farming is still viable. Or, do we die here watching our children and grandchildren move away, sell or have the farm condemned for pennies on the dollar for another soccer field, greenway or conservatory in the name of tourism? 
While the county paid $60,000 to $95,000 an acre for the old Edmisten farm for a school, the rural farmer is expected to have his property devalued. For what crime? Holding onto the family farm.
Deborah Greene


Farming forum: Benefit or curse?
Editor:
Thirty-six people attended the supposed Watauga "Farming for the Future"meeting with representatives of several government agencies, vested groups, and some ASU students of the coerced Wal-Mart community garden plot.
A slide show with statistics confirmed the already well-known decline in the number of Watauga County farms. Along with the dollar's continued erosion, farming income has decreased, and the average age of farmers is 59.3 years - again, nothing new. That was it - there is no plan.
Government agencies and other vested interests represented were:
1. County Soil & Water Conservation Director - beginning facilitator, Brian Chatham
2. Watauga Board of Commissioner Winston Kinsey
3. NC State Economist - Blake Brown
4. FSA Director - Bud Smith
5. Voluntary Farmland Preservation Board - six in all
6. NC Farmland Conservation Trust - another facilitator (with national and international affiliations)
In addition, there were two representatives from Frontline Conservation Real Estate - a real estate agent for conservation groups.
At this meeting, one farmer turned in his membership in the ostensible Farmland Preservation District Program. Additionally, he complained that this program did not protect his farm, and he was being exploited, a mere pawn, to promote farmland zoning for view-shed protection. We understand others will follow suit.
This meeting was another Delphi Technique presentation with government facilitators - change agents. We warned about these psychological tricks years ago. These staged meetings are to persuade reasonably intelligent, cautious people to agree to changes or doubtful ideas that they would not ordinarily agree to, or would be reluctant towards, as individuals. The facilitators, as trained, ridicule and discourage anyone who questions the procedures and/or whatever is offered to the group.
The farmers and rural property owners need to get together as a private groups, without interfering, heavy-handed government agencies, and form their own cooperatives to work together to solve their problems with real, profitable solutions.
The professed Watauga County Farming for the Future and the Farmland Preservation Program are components of the so-called "Watauga County Farming for the Future"which are part of Winston Kinsey's "Citizens' Plan for Watauga"to basically zone rural regions and the few farms remaining for view shed protection and to stop even modest development in rural areas.
These plans and programs are not to help the farmers and rural landowners profit from their lands or to protect them from lawsuits.
Madeline K. Carter


Recycling gratitude
Editor:
The Boone Coordinated Recycling Committee wants to thank all parties who made possible the new Boone Recycling Center at the Horn in the West Parking Lot near the entrance to the Daniel Boone Gardens. These parties include Don Phelps, Jeff McRee, and Jeff Harper at GDS Trash Collection Services; Marsha Story, Blake Brown, and Eric Gustaveson at the Town of Boone Public Works Department; the Boone Mayor and Town Council, and all the current and potential recyclers who utilize and hopefully will utilize the Recycling Center.
This Recycling Center will help make it easier for all residents (permanent, seasonal, county, and students) to recycle and will serve as a great addition to the Town of Boone's existing curb-side recycling program - which will remain intact. We hope the Center is widely used and respected so that it can continue to be operational for many years to come.
Again, we want to thank everyone involved for your commitment to help protect our environment and for keeping the site clean and neat.
The Coordinated Recycling Committee
Marsha Story, Boone Recycling Coordinator
Stephen Phillips, Boone Town Council
Rennie Brantz, Boone Town Council
Lisa Doty, Watauga County Recycling Coordinator
Tim Futrelle, Watauga County Commissioner
Jennifer Maxwell, ASU Resource Conservation Manager
Kendal McDevitt, ASU Off-Campus Community Relations Coordinator
Andrew Edmonds, ASU Student Government Director of Environmental Affairs
Tracy Myhalyk, ASU Biology Department
Morgan Bosse, ASU Renewable Energy Initiative
Cindy Ball, Elkland Arts Center
Lexie Danner, Elkland Arts Center
Leslie Beninato, Recycling Runners



More questions about New River intake
Editor:
In dealing with the proposed Boone water intake on the South Fork of the New River, I would like to share a response I received from a Boone official that proves, in my opinion, that data used as a main selling point in the promotion of this project was not hard factual data but data from a four-year-old survey. 
The question is focused on claims in the Boone presentation that the city would reach 80 percent of water capacity in 2006 and 90 percent in 2009 when in fact their web site data showed considerably less than that in 2007 actual usage. The town's response:
"Every town of Boone staff person and member of the communication team want to provide accurate information, so there has been a very thorough review of information in response to your question regarding 2006 data and whether or not Boone exceeded the 80 percent of capacity threshold. I can see how a comparison of data from the Web site to information in the PowerPoint would lead you to ask the question. The information for the PowerPoint presentations was based on a study conducted in 2004. Based on engineering and historical data up to that point, Boone was projected to exceed the 80 percent mark in 2006 and was projected to hit the 90 percent mark in 2009. We went deeper into the actual numbers and found that on individual days in 1997, 1999, 2003, 2004, and 2007, Boone exceeded the 2.4 million gallons maximum daily demand, which is the 80 percent threshold.  In October 2006, Boone came very close to that threshold at 2.339 million gallons maximum daily demand. In January 2009, we had a peak use day of 2.545 million gallons maximum daily demand.  Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We are making the appropriate revisions. The actual numbers all clearly indicate the need for additional water, and as a municipality, the town has a responsibility to provide clean water to our citizens.
The actual numbers for all of 2009 remain to be seen, but we do know there has been a decrease from the projected numbers due to water conservation measures, peak shaving measures implemented at the water treatment plant, the passing of ordinance 05-01(a water allocation ordinance), a water conservation rate designed so those who use more will pay more, and recent economic conditions."
Far from showing a clear need, my opinion is that the above shows that conservation has been at work and this along with less intrusive measures (maybe one of the other 28 options) should be looked at more seriously in meeting Boone's future water needs.  The data does not support a 4.5 million gallon intake or more than doubling Boone's water intake from this historic river.
Why did Boone not go "deeper into the numbers"and do a "very thorough review of information"prior to the bond vote instead of using data from an old and outdated study to promote this project? How thorough has the planning been for this whole project? What other data also needs to have a deeper look?
Those are key questions the citizens of Boone should now be asking their elected officials.
Frank Packard
Todd