Property rights are at stake in Foundation squabble over bike path

There is no better gift to Newark and Licking County than the extensive set of bike trails built by the Evans Foundation and its leader, Gib Reese. It has been a decades-long, very expensive, and very difficult endeavor.

Gib took on the project before "being green" became fashionable, and likely his work has been the inspiration for, and prototype of, the trails that have since proliferated in Ohio and elsewhere.

The main trail extends from Johnstown on the west side of the county to a point beyond Hanover, far to the east of Newark, with but one short breach in the near east side of the city. (See map). I have experienced most of the trails by biking them, and nobody values them as a community asset more than I.

But I am bothered by the attitude Gib is projecting in the press toward those who own property over which he wants to build the next link.

Here's the way the Advocate reported on that aspect:

Reese said he can’t understand why someone would fight against a bike path, something that benefits the community and increases property values.

“If someone wants to be selfish and block it, I suppose they can hire an attorney and try to block it,” Reese said. “I can’t imagine anybody is going to want to be so selfish, because what use would anybody have with (the strip of land)?

“They can do it, or at least try. I’m not saying I’ll just sit back and let it happen.”

It distresses me to say anything negative about Gib Reese because of all he's done for us, and I think most folks hold that attitude. But the fact is, he is not winning any friends by trying to trample the rights of property owners, if that's what's going on here.

There was no mention in the Advocate's report or that of the Dispatch of a claim by the Foundation that its ownership of the old railroad includes continued use of right-of-way. If it does not, there's no question about whose decision it is to allow continued use of the land by anyone other than the owners. Nor do these reports say anything about an effort by the Foundation to negotiate - not with a right-of-way lease payment, not with the offer of a privacy fence, not anything. So what kind of arrogance is that (if it's true)? It's the kind that's going to lose support for the commander and for the Foundation, no matter how pure and philanthropic their motives.