Authorizing the Hatfield-McCoy Regional Recreation Authority to contract to build and maintain trails on privately owned property
Impact
The passage of HB3328 marks a significant change in how trail management is approached within West Virginia. By enabling a state authority to coordinate trail projects on private property, it potentially opens doors for more extensive use of land that was previously off-limits for such activities. This change could result in boosting local economies through tourism, as improved trails attract visitors for recreation. The expectation is that more well-maintained trails could enhance the recreational appeal of the Hatfield-McCoy area, which is known for its outdoor activities.
Summary
House Bill 3328 aims to amend the Code of West Virginia by granting the Hatfield-McCoy Regional Recreation Authority the authority to contract for the construction and maintenance of trails on privately owned property, provided that the property owner gives consent. This bill specifically focuses on enhancing recreational opportunities in the region by allowing the establishment and upkeep of both motorized and non-motorized trails, thereby promoting outdoor activities and tourism in the area. Legislators believe that this measure will contribute to local economic development through increased recreational use of private lands.
Sentiment
The sentiment surrounding HB3328 appears to be predominantly positive, with broad support among legislators who recognize the economic benefits that enhance outdoor recreation can provide to the region. The voting record reflects this support, as the bill passed the Senate with a substantial majority, receiving 31 votes in favor versus only 1 against. That said, there may still be concerns regarding the implications for private landowners and how the consent for trail development is managed, although these concerns did not translate into significant opposition during the legislative process.
Contention
While HB3328 was passed relatively smoothly, notable points of contention could arise regarding property rights and local governance. Critics may argue about the extent to which the state authority should influence land use on private property, despite having property owner's consent. The potential for increased foot and vehicle traffic might raise concerns among some landowners about damages or disruption to their land. Thus, the ongoing discussions might include how to best balance these development activities with the rights and concerns of private property owners.