Skip to content
The Archive of The Carrboro Citizen
Menu
  • Home
  • News
  • Community
  • Schools
  • Business
  • Opinion
  • Obituaries
  • Sports
  • Mill
  • Flora
  • Print Archive
  • About
Menu

The facade of saving Bolin Creek

Posted on February 25, 2010February 25, 2010 by Staff

Dave Otto

For the past decade, as a founding member of the Friends of Bolin Creek, I have fought tirelessly to preserve the Bolin Creek corridor. For much of that time, I served as chairman and leading advocate for the creation of a “park and preserve” along the creek between Estes Drive and Homestead Road. While the Carrboro Board of Aldermen lavishly praised our efforts, the Town of Carrboro never took any action to create a Bolin Creek park or preserve. The usual excuse was that the town had neither the funds nor the manpower to acquire and maintain such a park. In fact, the town is still struggling to pay down the debt incurred by the purchase of the Adams Tract.

During the past two years, I have been privileged to serve on the Carrboro Greenways Commission, helping to plan greenways along the two major streams in Carrboro – Bolin and Morgan creeks. Designing greenways for the community has expanded my thinking beyond the preservation of woodland and riparian corridors. The primary function of greenways is to connect neighborhoods, schools and parks. A closely related function is to provide a transit corridor for commuting to school, work or shopping centers. Greenways also provide important opportunities for recreation and healthy living in an increasingly urban environment. Finally, greenways connect woodlands, providing corridors essential for the preservation of wildlife species. Greenways thus serve an important secondary role in environmental preservation, but the primary function is creating community.

I now find myself in the thankless position of advocating for the town’s initiative to create a greenway between Estes Drive and Homestead Road, an effort that many perceive as the violation of a sacred trust in my prior role as leader of the Friends of Bolin Creek to preserve this very land. A new movement to “Save Bolin Creek” has arisen to oppose the proposed greenway, and I am frequently on the other side of the fence, arguing with friends and colleagues about the merits of the greenway. While there is sincere disagreement about the surface and location of the greenway, the Greenways Commission, the Friends of Bolin Creek and the new Save Bolin Creek are all committed to preserving the Bolin Creek corridor. The disagreement really reduces to how best to preserve the land and to serve the community.

In my view, this disagreement boils down to access to the Bolin Creek corridor and adjacent woodlands. That is, opponents of the proposed greenway have constructed an elaborate facade of “environmental preservation” to conceal the real motive, which is to limit access to the creek and woodlands. This facade takes a variety of forms. One of my neighbors, who lives in a prime creekside lot, candidly admitted his reason for opposing the greenway: “It’s classic NIMBYism; I don’t want a greenway in my backyard!” Many others who adamantly oppose the greenway also live in prime creekside locations, although few will admit to NIMBYism.

On the other hand, many opponents of the greenway do not live creekside. The most common criticism from this faction is that an impervious surface in the riparian zone will increase runoff and degrade the quality of the creek. Dave Cook expressed this sentiment last week in a Citizen op-ed (“Not my vision”): “Suffice it to say that the compaction of the soil by heavy machinery … will do nothing good for stormwater runoff.” Cook is correct that compaction of the soil creates problems, but the surface of the OWASA roadway is already impervious, hardened by decades of use and abuse by heavy equipment to maintain the sewer line and by the relentless pounding of hikers, bikers and runners who use the roadway. Considerable sediment washes from the roadway whenever there is heavy rain. As a general rule, impervious surfaces should not be constructed in riparian corridors. Contrary to what opponents claim, construction of an impervious greenway in this case would actually stabilize the roadway, prevent abrading of land beside the roadway and reduce sedimentation of the creek.

In the same op-ed, Cook paints a poignant and romantic image of the crusade to preserve Bolin Forest: “I am writing for the woods themselves, the character of them,” implying that the woodlands are a pristine wilderness that construction of the greenway will destroy. This argument is another common form of the environmental facade.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Bolin Forest is honeycombed with trails built by mountain bikers and is extensively used by hikers, bikers and runners. The woodlands are a valuable community resource for recreation, exercise and as a respite “to replenish our souls,” but to claim that Bolin Forest is a pristine nature preserve is poppycock! The myth is seductive, but reality has long been otherwise.

The hypocrisy of this argument is compounded by the fact that many of the hikers, bikers and runners who regularly use these trails are the loudest opponents of the greenway. In other words, they want to keep these marvelous woodlands for themselves! Dr. David Wohl, in his letter last week, summarized this hypocrisy eloquently: “heartless elitists whose agility is only matched by our callousness to the disabled, a cartel of landed gentry with a hidden agenda to make the forest our own private recreation area, a band of opportunists blind and neglectful to social justice …” Yes, Wohl; you hit the nail on the head!

“Don’t pave it all,” the header of Wohl’s letter, illustrates another common misconception – i.e., that construction of the proposed greenway will somehow destroy all of the undeveloped land between Estes Drive and Homestead Road. Let’s consider some basic facts about Carolina North, which constitutes 60 percent of the land in question. Greenway opponents cleverly note that a 10-foot-wide concrete path extending for 2.5 miles along the creek results in three acres of concrete. The corollary is that UNC has committed to preserve 600 acres of Carolina North for the next 50 years. In other words, the proposed greenway would utilize 3/600ths, or one-half of 1 percent, of the total acreage of Carolina North, which will not be developed in our lifetime! Wohl argued that “the benefits of keeping one part of Bolin Forest unpaved outweigh the benefits of paving it.” Is 0.5 percent of Bolin Forest too much for Wohl to provide access to everyone in the community?

While I applaud the efforts of individuals and groups interested in preserving the Bolin Creek corridor, I am convinced that the “environmental preservation” arguments of many greenway opponents are simply a facade to conceal efforts to limit access to the Bolin Creek corridor. I challenge all who love this community treasure to step back and consider what is really in the best interest of the larger, rapidly growing community!

Dave Otto is vice chair of the Friends of Bolin Creek and the Carrboro Greenways Commission. The opinions expressed here are his own and do not represent the views of either group.

3 thoughts on “The facade of saving Bolin Creek”

  1. David Wohl says:
    February 25, 2010 at 12:18 pm

    Mr. Otto, it is unfortunate that you continue to try to add more heat to this discussion with attacks that are personal in nature and by using my words out of context. I ask you, as a leader, to help restore civility to this debate.

    Let’s focus on the facts as well as the desires of our community for Bolin Forest. My view is that we all are advocating for a special and, dare I say, natural space for Carrboro and Chapel Hill. We have different visions of what this looks like but I do not think anyone, pro or con a paved transit corridor through the forest, is being selfish or deceptive. I hope on this we can agree. – David Wohl

  2. Chris Bond says:
    February 26, 2010 at 7:32 am

    I am glad you wrote this editorial, because it reveals your self interest when you stated; “Greenways thus serve an important secondary role in environmental preservation, but the primary function is creating community.”

    You think little of the environment, placing it “secondary” to humans. You want to use it and exploit it for personal, human gain. And you justify paving the forest by saying that it is not “pristine”? So why not fight to make it more pristine instead of less pristine? Instead of using the “increasingly urban environment” as justification for paving the forests, use it as justification to stop urbanization.

    And who at this moment cannot use the existing trails in that forest? How is the “access limited”?

    This debate is not about what greenways are, it is about whether we need a greenway in that forest at all. The traditional function of a greenway is to bring forests back into an urban environment, not to bring the urban environment into forest. And it is also about whether the town, county, state, and federal government can afford this five million dollar project when they at the same time are slashing mental health care.

    I also want to ask Charles Fink of Greenways, Inc. if he has ever recommended a greenway not be built?

  3. Debbie Nichols says:
    March 3, 2010 at 10:36 am

    I wish to address this comment both to the writer of this editorial and to the respondents: I have been misrepresented by everyone. I am not in favor of paving but have been scapegoated by the anti-paving people. I have been attacked by the two respondents above who are not in favor of allowing handicap access and I was misread by the writer of the editorial. My first letter had a headline that was incorrect and was corrected later, yet I was viciously attacked by both respondents above for being “pro-paving”. So who is attacking whom? I have advocated compromise and been dismissed by everyone. Why cannot you all agree to allow access to EVERYONE without necessarily paving?

Comments are closed.

Web Archive

© 2025 The Archive of The Carrboro Citizen | Powered by Minimalist Blog WordPress Theme