Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Midwest Continental Trail topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Farmers and residents push back on Midwest Continental Trail; supporters call it conservation opportunity
Summary
Multiple public commenters told the commissioners that the Midwest Continental Trail plan and redevelopment commission oversight threaten farmland and property values, raise eminent‑domain concerns and lack sufficient farmer input; supporters said the plan emphasizes easements and conservation and that eminent domain would be a last resort.
An extended public‑comment period at the June 23 St. Joseph County meeting focused on the proposed Midwest Continental Trail and the county’s redevelopment commission.
Multiple speakers—among them county Surveyor Derek David Dieter, residents and farmers—criticized the planning process, disputed the scope and cost of the planning work, and warned that the redevelopment commission’s structure could enable reclassification of property and use of eminent domain. Dieter said he had submitted packet materials to commissioners and asked to meet about a final County Knoll Divide report; he told the board the report shows about $550,000 has been spent so far on the planning effort. Brent Burkes called the plan "a fugazi" and read a series of statutory sections he said demonstrate broad authority for the commission; Burkes and other speakers expressed concern about buffers and restrictions they said could limit pesticide and fertilizer use within a half‑mile of a trail corridor.
Shantel Schneider, a local farmer, said farmers attended planning "show‑and‑tell" sessions rather than being invited to co‑design the plan, and that marketing materials showed her entire 1,200‑acre farm in a dotted study area. "The trail is a smoke screen so that St. Joe County and the city of South Bend can take our land," she said, asserting that an appointed five‑member commission could devalue farmland by re‑categorizing it as recreational. Dan Caruso and others echoed concerns that landowner input was insufficient and expressed worry that regulatory buffers could reduce productive acreage.
Those critical of the plan were challenged by others who urged patience and said the plan aims to use easements, purchases and conservation buffers rather than eminent domain. Steve Francis urged the public to keep an open mind and said some study funds remain unspent; he said a portion of the planning work also corrected downstate legislative language and that the plan includes identifying conservation corridors.
Commissioners acknowledged the concerns but said some changes (for example, altering the statutory structure that governs redevelopment commissions) would require action beyond the county. The meeting record shows contested claims about amounts spent and statutory implications; no legal determination was made during the meeting.
Next steps: commenters asked for follow‑up meetings with commissioners and for additional public engagement; the record shows the board and staff agreed to meet with interested parties and that further public comment and council consideration are likely as the planning process continues.
