New State Park?

[steve l]

I see in the PD the state is wanting a new state park alongside the 11P?  But the location is not listed other than near the Arkansas border.  Anyone (Brian?) know where this would located?

[Brian Sloss]

Along Frederick Creek off Y highway, they are buying 2500 acres.  It has 2.5 miles of 11 Point frontage, but that frontage in under easement with the forest service, which means no boat ramps, tree cutting or development.  They are fairly tight lipped, but sounds like they are just going to do a few primitive campsites.  Won't have much of an economic impact that far down the river with no RV or other lodging options.  Seems as if they mostly bought it to keep mining interests from doing so.  Until they announce more, that is all I got,.

[steve l]

Thanks Brian.  I suspect others who disagree, but in my mind if the state can buy up land around the 11P I'm all for it.  Too bad its not the area around Halls Bay, would love to see the current owners there gone.

[Jerry Rapp]

more info on this from St. Francois County - http://dailyjournalonline.com/news/local/dnr-head-takes-heat-on-oregon-county-plan/article_a31d6432-dc05-5f8c-a2bb-c52491e7343e.html

[Mark]

Yeah I don't understand why Oregon County residents are all upset. The Narrows is a beautiful area and so few have even heard of it. But with no boat ramps, tree cutting, or development, what good is it with only a few primitive campsites. And it is far enough downstream to not effect the National Scenic Riverways and their primitive beauty. I think a state park on the lower the Eleven Point would be a wonderful idea. Oregon County is so poor, and why would locals not be in favor of some development on their most precious resource if it would boost their economy, and allow more people to enjoy the river. I guess it all goes back to the thinking that they like things just the way they are, it's their river, and don't want to see change. I get that part of wanting to not turn into a touristy Van Buren type town, but the Oregon County ranks near the bottom in annual income each year. The added bonus of purchasing the land to keep mining interests out makes it all sound good to me. What am I missing that has everyone up in arms?

[mic]

Mark... I think what they are saying is they don't bring in much property tax income because the feds and state already own so much land in their county.  It the state buys this property that will be more tax dollars lost.  So... by having the park there may be more usage of infrastructure, but less money to pay for it. My guess is because it will only be primitive camping, there will not be enough sales tax money collected to make up the difference.

 

[Brian Sloss]

Not everyone is up in arms, just the most vocal.  What I think most that are upset don't like, is the loss of property tax revenue for a new park that takes 2500 acres for 10 primitive campsites.  No sales tax, no jobs, etc.  I think a small 200-300 acres park with a lodge, rv and located bordering existing national forest land between Cane Bluff and Riverton would be more welcomed, because it would be closer to the hub of activity, would bring jobs and sales tax revenue.  That said, I like land protected from mining, but I understand the frustration of getting a new state park, but none of the economic boost that they will get in Eminence with their new park.  They can't really develop the riverfront land the state bought because it is still inside the Wild and Scenic riverway and has easements.  If an exception is made for the park, litigation will follow from the other land owners with easements...and they would have a strong case.

[awhuber]

NOt everyone is up in arms, just the most vocal.  What I think most that are upset, don't like is the loss of property tax revenue for a new park that takes 2500 acres for 10 primitive campsites.  No sales tax, no jobs, etc.  I thinks a small 200-300 acres park with a lodge, rv and located bordering existing national forest land between Cane Bluff and Riverton would be more welcomed, because it would be closer to the hub of activity, would bring jobs and sales tax revenue.  That said, I like land protected from mining, but I understand the frustration of getting a new state park, but none of the economic boost that they will get in Eminence with their new park.  They can't really develop the riverfront the land the state bought because it is still inside the Wild and Scenic riverway and has easements.  If an exception is made for the park, litigation will follow from the other land owners with easements...and they would have a strong case.

Why not buy the 2000+ acre farm for sale on the upper end around Thomasville? That area is out of the scenic easement and would add more protection than a property already in the easement.

[SpoonDog]

The Farmington article makes it sound as though they were offered the property.

[jdmidwest]

Buying up the narrows would make a great new trout park. Build a new hatchery, pour some concrete, clear out some trees, make some roads and its a trout park. There is a pretty good stretch of spring fed stream there.