Dear Editor,

This letter is in regard to the proposal presented by the "Friends of the Tabor to Platte Rail to Trail" board to the South Dakota Railroad Board on September 29, 2021.

The trail they wish to develop on the Napa-Platte rail line is going to be another "rat-hole" for tax payer money and will probably only benefit a few. My question is "who wants unknown people going thru, next to their property." Just think, if it runs across the country, who knows who will be using it. Now days, with all the things that are happening, you can only guess what might occur.

Friends of the trail said, "it is underutilized land "that can be used better by developing a trail. To be truthful the farmers have over the years made the ground useful, working with the railroad board by spraying weeds and fixing fence, so they could use it for pasture or to put up hay. Yes, they may have made a but of cash from it, that money went back in purchases at businesses and in turn generated taxes for the state and land was kept useful even after the trains stopped running. It is a win for all. "Underutilized," not at all. The state benefited the most by the farmers taking good care of the land. I don't see farmers as willing to help if a trail is developed, because they will not be able to use it the same way.

The railroad line has a lot of problems to overcome. There are areas taken over by trees, trestles that will have to be rebuilt so bikes or people can use them and areas that flood during heavy rainfall and spring snow melts. The state will need to get the ground ready by removing track, ties and ballast even before they can start. This will be at a cost to the state a.k.a. you the tax payer.

Then after it is built there will be a continued maintenance cost. Who covers that? Will the revenue from the usage of it meet the need? If they ask the communities and counties along the trail to help, that's you the tax payer again. Yes the Michelson Trail is nice, but a budget of $200,000 or $2,000 per mile is allotted for ongoing maintenance, according to the document given to the rail board. The Michelson Trail probably offers a better return on the tax dollars spent being in a well-known tourist area. I don't think the Napa rail can offer the same.

Other questions arise, as who will police it, who will control the weeds and volunteer trees, who keeps the trash and toilet paper picked up and who covers complaints and liabilities? This list could go on and on. But it all seems to point to two things, extreme cost to develop the trail and extreme tax dollars from you the tax payer to maintain. One more thing that has not been considered in all this, what happens if the time comes and we need a train, maybe because of rising energy costs used to transport products. WHAT THEN?

Barbara Burma