The day has finally arrived and not soon enough: Town residents go to the polls on Thursday to decide the fate of the much-debated, criticized and praised rail trail.
Looming before the voters, beginning at 7 a.m. Thursday, will be a daunting, densely-printed ballot question asking residents to, in so many words, get the ball rolling on the trail project by approving $850,000 for design, engineering, land acquisition and “other work incidental” to the rail trail.
Voters will either approve the request or they will reject it. But what is almost certain is that the Great Rail Trail Debate of 2017 probably won’t end at the ballot box.
If trail proponents win, angry opponents are sure to at least contemplate legal recourse to block the town from taking initial steps to start the project. If the proponents lose, Town Hall, Cindy’s Pizza and any other local town gathering place are sure to be abuzz throughout the summer with pro and con talk about the rail trail’s fate.
How did an inanimate idea that barely exists on paper galvanize the town’s attention and trigger a frenzy of feelings for and against the idea of creating a rail trail? The answer is hard to grasp but it lies somewhere between raw emotion and a desire on the part of well-meaning people to make their town the best it can be.
A rail trail, in name at least, symbolizes progressive “green” thinking and a practical use of property no longer used for any purpose. A rail trail conjures up gauzy visions of happy families and healthy people jogging and bicycling or cross country skiing in the winter.
But the proposal also seems possessed with a magnetic power to attract criticism. Worries about the trail spawning land takings and the implications of eminent domain struck a strong negative chord with people who characterized the rail trail as everything from a land grab to a sneaky encroachment onto land owned by hard-working people.
Several town residents who put their views for and against the rail trail in writing took pains to make it clear they are not afflicted by a “not in my backyard” view of the rail trail. Most of them characterized spending $850,000 on the trail project as a poor financial choice for the town and, by extension, they implied town officials failed to plot out a sensible financial course for creating the trail.
It is interesting to note that Peabody and other cities have turned abandoned rail lines into trails for public while trails have become flashpoints for public disagreement in towns, including Lynnfield.
Maybe the reason the rail trail is a fertile source of disagreement is because people can easily stake out a strong viewpoint in favor or in opposition of the trail. Proponents can champion the trail’s environmental and recreational benefits while opponents can denounce trail advocates as highbrow do-gooders who, in their heart of hearts, don’t respect property rights.
What can be said about the rail trail is that it is a safe bet the debate over it won’t end on Thursday. Old wounds opened by the trail debate will take time to heal and cross words won’t be soon forgotten.