March 5, 2007

Dear Mr. Johnson:

We have reviewed the Detailed Stage Proposal (“Proposal”) which was presented to the Department of Corrections by Centex Moseley, LLC, a/k/a Commonwealth Corrections Solutions (“CCS”) on December 15, 2006.  As you know, the Proposal involves a site on the New River in the Cox’s Chapel community of Grayson County.  Notably, the Proposal fails to address numerous issues, all of which clearly demonstrate that the Cox’s Chapel location is not a viable site for construction of the proposed prison.  Some of the reasons have been set forth below.

CCS relies on a single letter from William D. Ring, the Grayson County Administrator, stating in part, “the Comprehensive Plan does not conflict with the pursuit and location of the prison,” to satisfy the Proposal’s compliance with Grayson County’s Comprehensive Plan (“Plan”).  Even a cursory examination of the Plan, however, reveals that the assertions in Mr. Ring’s letter are incorrect, as the development of a prison on the New River is wholly inconsistent with the county’s Plan.

For example, the Plan specifically lists “protecting the region’s natural resources, rural character, environmental cleanliness, and historic resources” as a “top priority” for the Mount Rogers Planning Region, along with the “development of the region as a nationwide destination point for outdoor recreation” (p. 91).  The Plan goes on to state the need for “increasing the emphasis on tourism development, bed and breakfast facilities, and recreational activities” (p. 93).  Mr. Ring’s assertion that the Proposal complies with the county’s Plan is incorrect. 

Additionally, the Plan specifies that Grayson County should locate new public facilities “in the most convenient and safest locations possible, while providing efficient and economical service [and insuring] . . . the location of public facilities to conform to other objectives in this Comprehensive Plan” (p. 96).  Yet the Proposal would situate the prison in an inconvenient location which fails to comport with the stated goals of the Plan.

Finally, the Plan specifically identifies tourism as an “essential piece of a diverse economy” (p. 104).  This includes recommendations to “educate the public about the value of tourism. . .[to] encourage development of service industries and businesses complimentary to specific attractions and destinations [such as the New River and state parks, and to] . . .promote points of interest, including . . .the New River, and . . . [to] attract visitors by supporting outdoor recreational opportunities” (p. 104).  Contrary to the Plan, siting the prison on the New River will negatively impact tourism, rather than encourage it.

Similarly, the Proposal fails to take into consideration the 2004 Grayson County Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Maps.  Ordinance map 71-A-47 shows that the Cox’s Chapel site is currently zoned Rural Farm (“RF”).  Section 3.1-1 of the Zoning Ordinance lists the permissible uses for RF land, to include farming operations, or incidental recreational uses—but clearly, not an industrial use such as a 1,024-bed state prison. (Copy of zoning regulations, Article III is attached) Thus, the prison cannot be built pursuant to the Proposal without an amendment of the Zoning Ordinance by the Grayson County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. 

The Proposal provides an estimated total cost of $99 million—exactly the amount budgeted by the General Assembly for the project.  Yet the Proposal fails to identify estimated cost projections for the various components of the project, such as land acquisition, site preparation, cost of materials, cost of labor, developer fees, and estimated costs for a number of other aspects involved in delivering this project to the Department of Corrections. 

Furthermore, the Proposal omits the cost for a number of infrastructure improvements necessary to locate the prison at the New River site. These costs include (1) building a new access bridge across the river; (2) extending 4 miles of 8” water lines to the site; (3) extending 4 miles of 8” sewer lines to the site; (4) constructing three sewer pumping stations; and (5) making additional road improvements on existing roads.  Essentially, the Proposal calls for Virginia taxpayers to fund local capital improvements.

The proposed prison site is landlocked, situated between the New River and the property owned by the Osborne family.  The only access through the Osborne property to the proposed site is by way of a prescriptive easement limited to agricultural use.  The owners of the property, who are opposed to the prison, have no intention of granting any additional easement and have posted No Trespassing notices on the property.  The family has filed an injunction to prohibit any access across their property for any use other than those identified expressly in the prescriptive easement.

Furthermore, any access from the river side of the proposed site will require the construction of a bridge.  Owners on both sides of the river are opposed to providing any easements for a bridge and will seek injunctive relief to prohibit the obtaining of any easements. Additionally, any bridge across the New River will require a thorough and lengthy review by the Army Corps of Engineers.

Finally, as a point of information, the access route along the river identified in the Proposal is subject to flooding on both sides of the proposed bridge, further complicating access to the New River site. To have all-weather access to a prison on this site via Rt. 711, the road will have to be raised to an elevation of 11-12 feet above its existing surface at the site of the bridge. Additionally, Rt. 711 drops in elevation to the east of this site so it will have to be reconstructed in order to be above the projected flood plain.

The Proposal devotes less than a single page to the environmental impact that the construction of a prison will have on the New River area.  While the Proposal does make cursory reference to “cultural resources, special status species,” and the existence of conservation easements along the New River, it reports that no “fatal flaws” have been identified.  But the construction of a bridge spanning the New River, the installation of water and sewer lines to connect the proposed site, the site development work, and the actual construction of a massive prison building with associated lighting clearly will have a negative effect on the river and the wildlife habitat—including threatening species such as bald eagles, which have been observed recently nesting in the vicinity of the proposed site.

Additionally, there are three recorded Indian artifact sites located on the proposed prison site which would be disturbed during the construction of the prison and associated road infrastructure.

The Proposal also runs contrary to the Commonwealth’s massive investment with regard to conservation easements.  There are numerous parcels of land surrounding the proposed site as well as along the corridor of the river which are currently under conservation easement.  The Commonwealth, by way of tax credits, has made a substantial investment in ensuring the protection of these parcels.  The construction of a prison flies in the face of this investment in the preservation of parcels along this American Heritage River, one of only 14 in the nation.  In addition, some of the alternative plans with regard to the siting of the bridge would necessitate connecting the bridge to sites under conservation easement, which is impermissible.

continued . . .

The Proposal becomes even more suspect by stating that from an environmental impact perspective the site has “no fatal flaws.” This statement is at best inaccurate, at worst an attempt to obscure the fact that no credible environmental assessment has been performed on this site and no one at this time can make any assumption on the environmental impact a 1,024 bed prison will have on the surrounding environment.

Extensive Condemnation of Land Will Be Required

The Proposal appears to suggest the desire for one means of ingress and egress to the prison, either by way of a bridge spanning the river, or alternatively, by way of access through the private property.

It should be of great concern to the Department of Corrections that any access to the proposed site will require condemnation and the forced taking of private property. Recent court rulings in other states have prohibited the taking of private property for private economic gain. Since the developer of the site and the prison will be a private for-profit company, my client and affected land owners are prepared to challenge any taking of land in the appropriate courts.

Further, access to the proposed site will require road widening and other improvements that will impact additional property owners. Although the Proposal indicates that no condemnation is anticipated, it is my client’s contention that a number of property owners will be faced with condemnation in order to secure the right-of-way necessary for the required road widening.

The Proposal significantly misrepresents opposition to the proposed site by only referencing a single organized group of citizens who are opposed to the project.

However, a number of national environmental and conservation organizations, including the National Committee to Protect the New River, have also expressed opposition to the New River site.  Numerous local citizens, as well as citizens throughout Virginia, have sent letters to the Board of Corrections and the Governor of Virginia requesting that the site not be considered and that the New River be protected.

Additionally, opposition to the site has also been registered on behalf of the adjacent Boy Scout Camp, nearby summer Camp Cheerio and operators of river outfitters along the New.  Further, newspapers in Virginia and North Carolina have written editorials opposing the New River site. Most notably the Winston-Salem Journal and the Roanoke Times. The Times incidentally, reversed a previous position supporting the site after visiting Cox’s Chapel. It is a rarity for a newspaper to completely reverse its position as the Times has done in this case.

Alternative Sites Have Not Been Properly Studied

The Proposal appears to suggest that alternative prison sites had been studied throughout Grayson County prior to the recommendation of the Cox's Chapel site. Based on information my client has received, we believe this is not an accurate representation.  Prior to the submission of the Proposal on December 15th, a number of additional sites were presented to the developer by several local realtors and individuals but were not evaluated.  One site in particular, which had been previously identified by the GEO group as a possible location for the prison, was submitted to the developer by one of the local commercial realtors.  He was never contacted by the developer.

The Proposal lists a First Alternate Site on Rt. 21 as unacceptable to officials in Grayson County. The officials or the reason for the site’s rejection is not specified in the Proposal.

A third site was also rejected by the developer as not having sufficient flat acreage. While the Proposal asserts that the local realtor who submitted that site agrees with the developer on this point, the realtor disputes that claim and further insists this third site is suitable.

These two questionable disqualifications of sites without adequate explanation as well as the continued defense of the New River site by local officials fuel a widely held opinion that the New River site was selected as the preferred site back in 2004, unnecessarily withheld from the public for two years, and any efforts to identify additional sites were superficial at best, as the developer had no intention to consider seriously any other site.

Additionally, the Proposal’s statement that all three of the identified sites have support from some of the residents of Cox’s Chapel is a disingenuous attempt to suggest that the residents of Cox’s Chapel support the New River site. They do not.

Contention that the Site Will Not Be Visible From the River is Preposterous

The Proposal claims that the “bowl” geography of the proposed New River site will hide the prison from view.  This claim can only be taken seriously by those who have never been to the proposed prison location.

While somewhat set back on the site, a massive two story 1,024 bed prison structure and support facilities will not only be visible from the river, but for miles around from almost any vantage point selected. The proposed road infrastructure will scar the face of the hillside directly facing the river, the proposed bridge will destroy the otherwise pristine beauty of the Molly Shoals section of the river, and the visual light pollution produced by the prison, no matter how well shielded, will obscure and forever ruin the magnificent views of the night sky for miles around.

Additionally, increased pollution, trash and noise will be generated by the 700 – 800 additional vehicle trips that will be made to and from the prison each day.

For the Proposal to suggest that the prison on this site will not be visible from the river based on the preliminary documents submitted is not only a misstatement, but a fatally flawed assumption of the real impact this facility will have on the New River and surrounding community.

Conclusion

We do not oppose the construction of a prison in Grayson County and understands the positive impact of new jobs; however, it simply believes that there is a better place to put a new prison than on the banks of one of Virginia’s natural treasures, the New River.

We offer this correspondence point-out just some of the insurmountable issues with regard to the construction of a prison on the New River.  We are hopeful that the Virginia Department of Corrections does not support the development of a new prison along the New River.  The proposed costs have been under-estimated.  Furthermore, pursuing this site will result in numerous disputes brought by Cox’s Chapel Grange as well as the landowners in the surrounding area.