I am writing to express my concerns regarding the future of Cacapon State Resort Park and to advocate for a more inclusive and thoughtful approach in its development. We urge the state to address the following shortcomings of the process before proceeding with any development:
-
The process for the Request for Proposals (RFP) for development of Cacapon State Resort Park (CSRP) was inappropriate and should not be renewed. The public’s views should have been sought before issuing an RFP. The RFP should not have focused on seeking proposals from private, for-profit corporations to finance, build and maintain park facilities for profit. There are alternatives that the RFP ignored, including other public-private partnerships. Once the survey is reviewed, and before any new decisions are made, the state should publish and hold a public hearing for public input on several alternatives for the park’s future. If the state issues an RFP, then an additional public hearing should be held in accordance with the law’s requirement before finalizing an agreement.
-
The state officials failed to follow the West Virginia State Parks system’s mission: “to promote conservation by preserving and protecting natural areas of unique or exceptional scenic, scientific, cultural, archaeological, or historical significance and to provide outdoor recreational opportunities for the citizens of this state and its visitors.” The focus of the RFP also is inconsistent with the stated WV Tourism marketing of the unique natural beauty of our state such as “Experience the Unique Calmness Found Only in the Outdoors of West Virginia.” The development of a large RV park and recreational facilities necessarily means destroying trees and other aspects of the natural environment, not preserving it. In this modest-sized park it is important to retain the beauty and serenity that draws visitors. Once it is destroyed, it is not replaceable.
-
The private, for-profit investment model is inappropriate for CSRP. State parks provide opportunities for the public to enjoy the natural environment that generally do not exist as for-profit businesses due to the lack of profit opportunities. The state officials’ focus on a privately-developed, -constructed, -financed and -operated project inevitably resulted in a proposal for a very large development so that the private company would invest, borrow money and generate its desired level of profits. The state can and does develop and operate campgrounds and recreational facilities and can do so here, including by retaining private companies to assist it.
-
A large campground and recreational facilities are not appropriate and are not necessary. The RFP inappropriately guaranteed that the only successful proposal would be one completely out of proportion and character to this park. The State could increase visits to the park and revenue, consistent with the state parks’ mission and the character and size of this park. We expect that the survey will yield examples of ways CSRP could be enhanced and attract more visitors and generate revenue. In addition, if state officials desire a large RV campground and recreational facilities, they can build it elsewhere to avoid ruining this park. The ongoing development of a large RV campground under a major brand’s sponsorship just a few miles away from this park offers opportunities that should be considered.
-
Many of us have enjoyed camping in tents, cabins and recreational vehicles in state and national parks. Some signers oppose any RV campground at this park, while others express a willingness to accept a very small RV campground with specific conditions to ensure protection of the park’s environment, character and scale. Some have suggested a small increase in the number of cabins and a campground for tents. All of the undersigned strongly oppose a large RV park and related recreational facilities at CRSP.
-
Finally, the state’s decisions should be made in consultation with experts and the public so that the park’s character and scale are respected. Any such decision should take into account financial, economic, environmental historical and aesthetic factors. The state fundamentally erred by declining to obtain public input before issuing the RFP and by failing to require the RFP submissions to include financial information, revenue and expense projections, risks associated with business failures in the park, environmental impacts and other information necessary to make an informed decision. Once the state has reviewed the survey responses and other input, it should provide information to the public about the options it is considering and enable the public to provide input prior to making a decision on an RFP or other actions.
We want to protect and preserve West Virginia’s natural beauty and character of this historic park for tourists, the local community, and most important, for generations to come.
Thank you for your consideration.