County gravitates toward endorsing construction of local rest area | Eastern North Carolina Now

    Beaufort County commissioners are no longer unified in their opposition to the Department of Transportation’s proposed construction of a county rest area, as of their Thursday meeting with the DOT. Up until their meeting, the commissioners had been unanimous in their resistance to a local rest area since January 2009, when they wrote a resolution stating their case to state officials.

    This is an especially surprising turn of events given the fact that the DOT representatives at the meeting conceded that they would likely not use the power of eminent domain to take possession of the property if the board were in firm opposition to it; a revelation which contradicted the county’s prior expectations. That means, now that the board is finally aware of its power to prevent the DOT’s purchase of roughly 20 acres along US Highway 17 one mile south of Chocowinity and erect a rest area; it may elect to not use that power.

The Department of Transportation provided Beaufort County commissioners with the most recent site plan for the proposed county rest area at their presentation Thursday.
    “What we will certainly be looking for is the preference of the board. And we typically… do not condemn for properties like this,” said DOT representative Dwayne Alligood. “We have not been discussing condemnation, so with you being the owner of the property, you make the decision that you’re opposed to this as a board, and that you are not going to work with us on the purchase of the property, then likely it won’t happen.”

    Commissioner Al Klemm said that the board’s resolution was against a completely “unmanned” rest area, and that he was satisfied by DOT representative Jimmy Parrish’s reassurances that the Beaufort County rest area was going to be “manned.” Parrish defined a “manned” site as one that is staffed during the day—from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. (weekdays), 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. (weekends) and 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. (daily, during the off-season).

    Throughout the lengthy presentation, during which Parrish pulled all the stops, showing photographs of landscaping and architecture at rest areas across the state, one by one commissioners Klemm, Jay McRoy, Jerry Langley and Ed Booth seemed to be losing resolve—telling stories of their respective pleasant experiences at rest areas and with DOT employees, and stating ways a rest area could benefit the county.

DOT representative Jimmy Parrish said that the Beaufort County rest area would be more like the one-and-a-half story building at the Dare County site (pictured here), than the rest area in Craven County, more specifically, Vanceboro.
    These concessions came after Parrish’s honest admission that the rest area could be a magnet for some “adverse activity.”

    “You’re going to have a certain amount of, maybe, prostitution…They’re could be some drug trafficking,” said Parrish. “I’m not saying it’s not serious, but you could have that at Wal-Mart parking lot, or you could have that at a truck stop.”

    When Deatherage asked if the rest area would facilitate the distribution of travel brochures, Parrish said that it wouldn’t be possible due to vandalism.

    “We have done that in some locations in the lobbies and, due to vandalism, after hours, and I don’t want to sound negative, but this is what happens: they’ll take those brochures and they’ll flush it down the toilet,” said Parrish.

    Parrish informed the commissioners that the rest area would employ four to six people, at $9 to $12 an hour. He also reminded the county that the DOT would be water and sewer customers. Klemm said that the county needed the rest area for this economic impact.

    “One thing is, we’re a Tier 1 county, we’re very poor, we need jobs, and we need money,” said Klemm.

    Deatherage was the only commissioner present who consistently spoke out in opposition to the idea of a rest area in Beaufort County. (Commissioner Robert Cayton refrained from commenting during the meeting, and Commissioner Hood Richardson was not present for the meeting.) Deatherage propositioned that the rest area would do more harm than good, by introducing the “detrimental influences” of more crime to the area and by removing an incentive for travelers to stop and spend money in Washington.

    “It would be better for the city of Washington and businesses in Washington, up and down (Highway) 17, if there were no rest areas and you had to get off the road to go use the bathroom,” said Deatherage. “And you might stop to eat and do some other things. You just get caught up in the whole city, at that point.”

    Parrish said that accident reduction is the primary purpose for the rest areas. He cited Federal Highway Administration studies, which found a 52-percent increase in accidents in rural areas without rest stops. He said it’s important that long-distance drivers have a place to stop and get refreshed.

    “I don’t want to sound negative, but we don’t build rest areas for locals,” said Parrish. “We build them for out-of-state travelers, or travelers from far off, even in the state of North Carolina.”

    Langley, the board’s chairman, told the DOT that the board would discuss the issue at their next meeting and relay to them their official answer of opposition or support.