Battlefield preservation

From the March 21, 2009 issue of The Gettysburg Times:

National Park Service may buy country club

The National Park Service is interested in purchasing the 60-year-old Gettysburg Country Club’s 120-acre property along the 700 block of Chambersburg Road,.
BY SCOT ANDREW PITZER
Times Staff Writer

The National Park Service is interested in purchasing the 60-year-old Gettysburg Country Club.

According to Gettysburg National Military Park spokeswoman Katie Lawhon, talks are ongoing between the park and the club’s owner, Susquehanna Bank. The club closed in 2008 because of financial difficulties.

“We have been in touch with the new owners,” Lawhon said this week. “We’ve been in negotiations with other owners for years, but could never come to a successful agreement. Now, it’s beginning again with the new owners.”

The 120-acre property along the 700 block of Chambersburg Road is listed as a “high priority” in the park’s land protection plan of 1993. It sits within the boundaries of the 6,000 acre park.

“Essentially, we would buy the rights to subdivide the property,” Lawhon said.

When asked what the park would do with the land, Lawhon replied that the purpose of obtaining the property would be to save it from future development.

“It’s developed, but it’s not like there are 120 houses,” she said.

The Park Service would likely maintain the property as open recreational space. Also, vegetation may be cleared to enhance the area’s historic viewshed. The club sits on the site of the historic Abraham Spangler and Harmon farms, according to the park. Confederate soldiers advanced and retreated over the farmland during the Battle of Gettysburg, July 1, 1863.

Now, the property includes a nine-hole golf course, tennis courts, a swimming pool, other recreational areas, and a clubhouse.

“All of that could stay, and continue to be used for recreational use,” Lawhon said.

For the first time since 2001, the federal government is allocating funds to GNMP for land acquisition purposes. The park is slated to receive $2.2 million in 2009. Some of those funds could potentially be used to acquire the country club.

“It’s a very long process for the Park Service to acquire the land,” Lawhon noted.

There is no word on the property’s potential selling price, but there are a few signs.

During a sheriff’s sale in January, the “upset” bid for the club was announced at $2.79 million, meaning that the bank would not sell it for less than that amount. No bids were submitted, so the property went back to Susquehanna Bank, the financial agency that foreclosed on the property last year.

“Banks are not generally in the business of running country clubs,” bank attorney Eugene Pepinsky said previously.

Gettysburg Country Club, 730 Chambersburg Road, had been open since 1948 but found itself in dire straits in 2008 when club officials said its financial situation had “never been more serious.”

The club racked up more than $3.6 million in debt over the past several years to various groups.

It owed $2.9 million in mortgage for a new clubhouse and tennis courts, and the club owed money to at least 16 different organizations.

The new building has a 70-seat conference room; a pub that can hold 60 people; and a ballroom with a capacity of 250.

Following a costly development project in 2006-07, the club’s financial problems forced it to close in May 2008.

Club members paid to reopen the pool in June 2008, and the county sheriff seized the land in Sept. 2008.

Let’s hope that there is a way to add this land to the Gettysburg National Military Park, because its addition will restore a significant portion of the first day’s battlefield to public accessibility.

Continue reading

The following passage, which comes from the quarterly newsletter of the Washington County, Maryland Planning Department, demonstrates the excellent preservation work being done around the Antietam National Battlefield by the local authorities. The folks from Washington County are quietly doing an excellent job:

RURAL LEGACY PROGRAM AWARDED $ 460,700
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009

Washington County received a Rural Legacy Program award in the amount of $460,700 for Fiscal Year 2009 at an award ceremony by Governor Martin O’Malley on December 3rd. Senator Don Munson was on hand for the award presentation. The funds will help Washington County to continue purchasing easements in the Antietam Battlefield area as we work towards our overall county goal of 50,000 acres under permanent preservation.

Including the FY 2009 award, our 11th since the inception of the Rural Legacy Program, Washington County has now preserved in perpetuity more than 4,000 acres on 30 farms in the Antietam Battlefield area through grant awards exceeding $11 million.

Kudos for a job well done. I wish more states had this sort of program to provide funding and that better use is made of preservation easements.

Continue reading

Even at the height of this horrific recession, the House of Representatives has passed legislation to provide funding for battlefield preservation:

HOUSE PASSES BILLS TO PROTECT REVOLUTIONARY WAR, WAR OF 1812 AND CIVIL WAR BATTLEFIELDS

On March 3, 2009, the House of Representatives passed two battlefield protection bills that authorize federal grants for the preservation of significant sites associated with the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812 and the Civil War. Similar bills passed the House last year, but were not considered by the Senate before it adjourned.

H.R. 146, the “Revolutionary War and War of 1812 Battlefield Protection Act,” amends the “American Battlefield Protection Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-333)” to direct the Secretary of the Interior to establish an acquisition grant program for battlefields and associated sites identified in a Revolutionary War and War of 1812 Historic Preservation Study prepared by the National Park Service (NPS).

The bill would authorize $10 million in grants annually in fiscal 2010-14 from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for the preservation and protection of Revolutionary War and War of 1812 battlefields and related historical sites, as is currently done for Civil War sites. The bill would allow officials at the American Battlefield Protection Program to collaborate with state and local governments and non-profit organizations to preserve and protect the most endangered historical sites and to provide up to 50 percent of the costs of purchasing battlefield land threatened by sprawl and commercial development.

According to a 2007 National Parks Service “Report to Congress on the Historic Preservation of Revolutionary War and War of 1812 Sites in the United States,” 170 of 677 nationally significant sites associated with the two wars are in danger of being destroyed in the next 10 years. . In addition to the 170 sites in danger of being destroyed within the next 10 years, the NPS found that 99 have already been lost forever and 234 are in poor condition. The bill includes $500,000 to update the Report within three years of enactment.

The House also passed H.R. 548, the “Civil War Battlefield Preservation Act of 2009.”

The legislation directs the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the American Battlefield Protection Program, to assist and work in partnership with citizens, federal, state, local, and tribal governments, other public entities, educational institutions, and private nonprofits in the identification, research, evaluation, interpretation, and protection of historic Civil War battlefields and associated sites.

The bill establishes a battlefield acquisition grant program under which the Secretary may provide grants to eligible entities (states and local governments) to pay the federal share of the cost to acquire interests in eligible sites for the preservation and protection of those sites. It permits an eligible entity to acquire an interest in an eligible site using a grant in partnership with a nonprofit and requires the non-federal share to be at least 50 percent. It limits acquisitions of land and interests under the bill to acquisitions of conservation easements and fee-simple purchases of eligible sites from willing sellers only.

The legislation authorizes appropriations to fund grants at a level of $10 million annually through fiscal year 2013. The Act would be repealed on September 30, 2019.

Let’s hope that the Senate not only gets to this legislation, but that it passes it.

Conservation/preservation easements can be an extremely effective means of preserving land without having to incur the cost of acquisition. This technique is being used very effectively in Washington County, Maryland in the areas surrounding the Antietam battlefield, and it’s a great way to leave land in private hands while still ensuring it will remain in its pristine state.

Continue reading

From the February 27 edition of the on-line version of The National Journal:

Park Service Employees Allege Pressure on Gettysburg Project
Interior IG Is Investigating The Gettysburg Superintendent’s Role In Developing A Massive New Battlefield Museum

by Edward T. Pound

Friday, Feb. 27, 2009

The senior construction program manager for the National Park Service says that an agency panel rejected a staff recommendation to scale back plans and cut costs for a massive new museum and visitor center at Gettysburg National Military Park after political pressure was exerted at the highest levels.

“We were rolled,” Michael D. LeBorgne told National Journal. LeBorgne, along with another staffer, Roger K. Brown, made the recommendation on Gettysburg to an important Park Service advisory board in 2003 while the museum project was still on the drawing board. Brown, the senior program analyst for construction before his retirement last year, told NJ: “Clearly, there was political pressure brought to bear. It wasn’t even subtle.”

Their objections, they said, were shunted aside and the new museum project — 139,000 square-feet and costing, in the end, $103 million — was given the go-ahead by the Park Service’s Development Advisory Board, or DAB. LeBorgne and Brown said the DAB acted after then-Park Service Director Fran Mainella showed up at the proceeding. She attended only one other DAB meeting during the entire five-and-a-half years she was director, they said.

“I am quite sure,” Brown said, “that the director’s presence intimidated the board.” In an interview, Mainella said she was only “trying to better understand how the DAB process worked” and was not trying to pressure the panel.

The staff members’ charges came in the wake of a National Journal story detailing conflicts over the Gettysburg project, including the proceedings before the Park Service’s advisory board. The superintendent at Gettysburg, John A. Latschar, went to higher-ups after LeBorgne and Brown raised concerns in October 2003 about the project in a discussion with Latschar and a project architect.

Latschar’s central role in developing the museum and visitor center now is under scrutiny by the inspector general of the Interior Department, which includes the Park Service. IG Earl Devaney is investigating Latschar’s dealings with the Gettysburg Foundation, the nonprofit that developed the museum project in partnership with the Park Service. Devaney’s investigators are also reviewing whether Latschar misused $8,700 in park and private funds to construct a fence on parkland adjacent to his home. Latschar has strongly denied acting improperly and said that he is confident he will be cleared by investigators.

In more than 14 years at Gettysburg, site of the most well-known battle of the Civil War, Latschar has engaged in repeated conflicts with critics, principally over his role in developing the new museum to replace an older facility.

This week, Richard R. Hohmann, the president of the Association of Licensed Battlefield Guides, called on Congress to explore possible “abuses” and “malfeasance” in the project’s development. Hohmann, whose members conduct tours of the Gettysburg battlefield, requested a congressional oversight hearing in letters to Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., and Rep. Todd Platts, a Republican whose district includes Gettysburg.

Hohmann said Congress should also take a hard look at “possible ethics violations” in light of news reports that raised questions about Latschar’s conduct. Hohmann, who has clashed with Latschar over issues related to the guides’ organization, also pointedly noted in his letter to Platts that the lawmaker had received campaign donations from Robert Kinsley, the chairman of the Gettysburg Foundation and head of a company that oversaw construction of the new museum facility. “We hope you will put aside any conflicts of interest,” Hohmann wrote, “and do your elected duty.”

Hohmann wrote in his letter to Platts that there has been “virtually no oversight” of the Gettysburg museum project for 10 years while the Park Service and the Gettysburg Foundation “proceeded under a veil of secrecy.” Both Platts’ and Casey’s offices said they would review the issues raised by Hohmann before commenting further. Latschar declined to comment on Hohmann’s criticisms.

But Latschar and others involved in the museum project, including Kinsley, have strongly defended their actions in developing the new facility. Both Latschar and Kinsley told National Journal that the new museum allowed them to convey much more clearly Gettysburg’s story and the battle’s consequences. The old museum, scheduled to be demolished, did not do justice to the historical importance and emotional power of Gettysburg, they added.

“We only had one chance to do this,” Latschar said, “and we wanted to do it right, as befits this hallowed ground.”

Kinsley has donated nearly $8.4 million to the foundation through his own family foundation, his personal funds and Kinsley-owned partnerships, according to foundation officials.

But two companies affiliated with Kinsley have also worked on the museum project; the foundation has paid those firms a total of $8,509,825. Kinsley’s company, Kinsley Construction, provided construction management “at cost” and at “no profit,” he and foundation officials have explained. Another company, LSC Design, headed by one of his sons, Robert II, was paid to provide program management and architectural services to the Gettysburg Foundation.

Criticism of the new museum, which opened last April, has centered on its size and cost. Critics argue that the Park Service and the Gettysburg Foundation misled the public.

Initially, the museum and visitor center carried a price tag of $39.3 million. Latschar and the Park Service repeatedly maintained that the project would not need government assistance. In his speeches years ago, Latschar said this about how the project would be funded: A “nonprofit corporation will be formed. Approximately 55 percent of the total project cost ($22 million) will be raised from donations, grants, and corporate sponsorships, while the remaining 45 percent ($18 million) will be borrowed.”

As it turned out, the Gettysburg Foundation spent $15 million in earmarked federal money to restore an oil painting-in-the round known as the Cyclorama, which is housed in the new facility. The Pennsylvania state government also poured $20 million into the museum development, and the foundation raised $68 million privately.

The Park Service and the foundation also did not plan to charge an admission fee to see the artifacts and museum exhibits. But four months after opening the new facility and projecting an annual revenue shortfall of nearly $1.8 million, a $7.50 admission fee was imposed; the fee also allows visitors to see the Cyclorama painting and a 22-minute feature film.

Looking back on the history of the project, one of the most important events took place in October 2003 when Latschar, Robert Kinsley II and the two senior staff members of the Park Service’s Development Advisory Board discussed the scale and cost of the project over the phone. At the time, according to Latschar, the younger Kinsley’s LSC Design provided “program management services” to the Gettysburg Foundation.

In the phone conversation, the DAB staffers — LeBorgne and Brown — made it clear that they thought, based on their analysis, that the project should be scaled back. According to Brown, he and LeBorgne expressed the view that “the scale of the design was too monumental.” He explained: “The best Park Service in-park design is something that fits into the landscape and doesn’t draw attention to itself.” He said that he and LeBorgne felt that there were “plenty of monuments at Gettysburg without adding” another.

LeBorgne, a 35-year veteran of the Park Service, told National Journal that, based on the agency’s models, a reasonable size for the facility would have been about 62,000 square feet. Figuring in another 20,000 square feet for foundation offices, a restaurant and book shop, LeBorgne said, the project would have been much smaller than the 139,000 square-foot-facility that eventually was built.

He said that he and Brown also raised concerns, in the phone conversation with Latschar and Robert Kinsley II, about the Kinsleys working on the project since the senior Kinsley was chairman of the Gettysburg Foundation board. Further, he said, they expressed concerns that the Gettysburg Foundation would not develop sufficient revenue to cover operational costs.

LeBorgne said it was his understanding that foundation officials believed that the museum-visitor center would be “totally self-supporting” and not require a public admission fee. And Brown said: “It wasn’t clear that the project would be adequately supported by revenue.”

Latschar disputed their account. In e-mail responses to National Journal questions, he said that he did not recall the DAB staffers raising either conflict-of-interest concerns or possible revenue shortfalls in the October 2003 phone conversation.

While the younger Kinsley was working on the project at the time, Latschar said that the Kinsley companies did not take on construction management and design-service responsibilities until late 2004, almost a year later. Robert Kinsley II did not return a phone call from National Journal seeking comment.

After the contentious phone call, Latschar said that he complained to Park Service higher-ups, including then-Director Mainella, about the staffers’ “unprofessional behavior.” With Mainella in attendance on Nov. 4, the DAB rejected the advice of LeBorgne and Brown and approved the project. Had the staffers prevailed, the project would have been reduced in size and cost, according to LeBorgne.

“The DAB is a very professional board and usually supports staff recommendations,” LeBorgne said, “so it was somewhat unusual for us to be rolled on this so easily.” Brown said that he concluded that Mainella attended the meeting to ensure that DAB members — a majority of whom worked for her — approved the large-scale project.

“I don’t recall her saying anything,” Brown said of Mainella. “She didn’t have to. It was very evident, just looking around at the board members’ faces, that they were stunned that she was there.”

In an interview, Mainella denied using her position to pressure the DAB. “Some employees feel that pressure when you show up,” she explained, “but that was not my intention.” She added that she was “very supportive” of the Gettysburg project.

What a cesspool of conflicts of interests this situation is…..

Continue reading

Late last October, it was announced that Gettysburg National Military Park Superintendent John Latschar was going to retire to assume the presidency of the Gettysburg Foundation at a major salary increase. I seriously questioned the ethics of this job move in a couple of posts here. Kevin Levin disagreed with me in a comment to his post, finding nothing wrong with the ethics of the situation.

Well, as the following press release from the National Park Service plainly demonstrates, there was something fishy about this situation after all. After being reined in by the NPS ethics people, who finally woke up and realized that there serious conflicts of interest inherent in this situation, Latschar has now reversed field, announced that he won’t take the position with the Gettysburg Foundation, and that he will remain as superintendent of the GNMP:

Latschar to remain in current post as Gettysburg Superintendent

Gettysburg Superintendent John Latschar will remain in his current post, reversing his decision to retire and become president of the Gettysburg Foundation. Latschar made the decision following advice by Department of the Interior ethics officials that would have severely curtailed his ability to work with the park in his new role with the Foundation.

When initially approached to consider heading the Gettysburg Foundation, Superintendent John Latschar did what any responsible federal employee should do, said National Park Service Northeast Regional Director Dennis R. Reidenbach. He contacted National Park Service ethics officials, and he also contacted me as his supervisor.

When initially informed by the Washington office in October 2008 that there was no ethical issue in accepting the position, Latschar announced his retirement. Subsequently, Department of Interior ethics officials issued supplemental guidance because of Latschar’s involvement in developing agreements between the Foundation and the NPS.

“The Foundation obviously would have been honored to have John as its next president,” said Foundation President Robert C. Wilburn. “But we are thrilled that he will continue to facilitate our successful partnership as superintendent of Gettysburg National Military Park.” A search committee to find Wilburn’s successor is in place; Wilburn will postpone his departure from the Foundation until a successor is named.

“I had been looking forward to the challenges of moving to the private sector and working for the Gettysburg Foundation,” said Superintendent John Latschar. “However, I can’t complain about going back to the best job in the National Park Service as Superintendent of Gettysburg NMP and Eisenhower NHS. We’ll now redouble our efforts to make our wonderful partnership with the Gettysburg Foundation the best that the National Park Service has ever seen.”

“The Gettysburg Foundation’s loss is the National Park Service’s gain, and I am happy that John chose to remain as superintendent,” said Reidenbach. “The situation with the ethics guidance was unfortunate, but John Latschar and the Gettysburg Foundation have always maintained the highest ethical standards possible.”

Personally, I’m glad that the ethics people finally woke up and realized that they needed to do something about the huge conflict of interest inherent in this transaction, and that they took steps to stop it. It just never smelled right to me from the very beginning, and I was shocked that they didn’t have the same reaction to what seemed to me to be a very obvious problem.

Continue reading

We had our quarterly meeting of the Buffington Island Battlefield Preservation Foundation yesterday. We learned some good news. The Ohio Historical Society has set aside funds to establish an interpretive kiosk at the four-acre battlefield park that it owns. Consequently, the two architects and the display designer who will be responsible for setting up this display attended the meeting. This is great news, as there is almost n interpretation on the battlefield.

In addition, we learned that more than 600 signs will be installed along the route of Morgan’s Ride through Ohio during 2009 and 2010. Obviously, some of this interpretation will affect the battlefield at Buffington Island. My view on it is the more the merrier. We can’t have too much interpretation.

Also, my efforts to develop an advisory board for the Foundation are beginning to pay some dividends. So far, Bud Hall, Mark Grimsley, Lesley Gordon, Pete Carmichael, Mark Snell, Ethan Rafuse, Ken Noe, and Brooks Simpson have all agreed to serve on our advisory board. They will make great additions to our efforts, and I appreciate their agreement to do so.

After the meeting, we paid a visit to the battlefield. It’s actually been a couple of years since my last visit. In fact, the last time I was there, the sand and gravel company had not commenced mining operations there yet. It was very only about 20 degrees and quite breezy yesterday, meaning that it was REALLY cold out there, and the conditions were less than ideal for an extended session of battlefield stomping. Consequently, we did an abbreviated tour intended to show the OHS folks what they needed to see in order to do their work at the battlefield.

It broke my heart to see what the sand and gravel company has done to the heart of the battlefield. It looks like a war zone. There are deep pits, and lots of heavy machinery present to remove the gravel from the battlefield. A big chunk of the section of the field where the heaviest and most protracted fighting occurred is torn up forever. Unfortunately, the sand and gravel company’s contract with the Army Corps of Engineers permits them to mine the area and then leave it as ponds and the like. They have no obligation to restore the ground in any fashion, so the ground that it has dug up is forever destroyed.

The only good news is that we are being told that the sand and gravel company is not finding the concentration of gravel that it hoped to find there. Hopefully, that will mean that they will terminate their mining operations early and without destroying as much of the battlefield as they had originally intended to dig up. We don’t know this for certain, but it is what we’re hearing. Let us hope that that’s true.

I will keep everyone posted as to our progress.

Continue reading

From the January 12 edition of the Fredericksburg Free Lance-Star newspaper:

Store Appears a Go in Orange
By Robin Knepper

1/12/2009

It can only be called unintended consequences.

Reacting strongly, and negatively, to pressure from groups of historians and preservationists, a majority of Orange County supervisors have thrown their support behind a Wal-Mart supercenter in the northeastern corner of the county.

At a weekend retreat supervisors Mark Johnson, Zack Burkett and Teel Goodwin declared their backing for the 138,000-square-foot store planned for a 19.5-acre site a quarter mile north of State Route 3.

Newly elected Board Chairman Lee Frame said he was undecided and his constituents were divided 50-50. Supervisor Teri Pace steadfastly opposed Wal-Mart’s building at that location.

The supervisors were reacting to a five-page memo sent to Frame and Pace on Friday from Katharine Gilliam, Virginia Programs manager for the National Parks Conservation Association. She forwarded a proposal from the Wilderness Battlefield Coalition, a group of eight organizations opposed to Wal-Mart’s building in the vicinity of the Wilderness Battlefield.

The group offered to pay for a “Gateway Vision Planning Process” to “protect the character and integrity of the national park.”

(The Wilderness Battlefield, part of the Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park, is on the opposite side of State Route 3 from the proposed Wal-Mart and is already home to a Sheetz, McDonald’s, used-car lot and strip mall.)

“This is nothing but a cheap ploy to slow down Wal-Mart,” said Burkett, “and we need the jobs and the tax revenue.”

“I vigorously oppose this,” said Johnson. “It’s just a delaying tactic.”

Pace objected, saying that her fellow supervisors were “throwing away an incredible opportunity for the county.”

Burkett replied, “If we give our blessing to this, it’s guaranteed they’ll use it against us.”

“I don’t want to give that group any standing,” added Johnson. “They’ve got a specific agenda they’re pushing.”

When Supervisor Teel Goodwin was asked whether he supported the coalition’s offer, he quickly replied, “Hell, no.”

It’s not only Wal-Mart that’s under fire from preservationists and Civil War buffs. The coalition has declared the agriculturally zoned land located in a 1,000-acre area designated by the county for economic development to be too close to the Wilderness Battlefield.

A condition of its offer was that the county not act on any development proposals in the study area (the Route 3 corridor between Wilderness Run and Vaucluse Road and east to the Rapidan River) until the study was completed.

Charles “Chip” King, whose family owns 2,000 acres on the north side of Route 3 and has planned Wilderness Crossing, a 900-acre mixed-use development there, has been meeting with preservation groups and the representatives from the Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park to develop an alternative route from Route 20 to Route 3.

King has hoped to have Wal-Mart locate in the Wilderness Crossing development to shield it from view from Route 3 and to expedite traffic into the larger development area.

Although traffic from routes 3 and 20 into the Wal-Mart site (between the existing Wachovia Bank and 7-Eleven) would further degrade that intersection, Wal-Mart officials have not been part of the discussions between King and the coalition. Sources say that Wal-Mart officials have recently been contacted, however, and have agreed to discuss the situation with King, Orange County officials and members of the Wilderness Battlefield Coalition and the National Park Service.

The present intersection is failing, according to officials of the Virginia Department of Transportation, who have to approve a traffic-impact analysis from Wal-Mart before the county can grant a special-use permit for the store.

According to County Administrator Bill Rolfe, Wal-Mart’s application for a special-use permit (required for retail construction larger than 60,000 square feet) will be subject to administrative review this month.

A public hearing on Wal-Mart’s application will be held before the county Planning Commission in March. A public hearing before the Board of Supervisors is expected in April or May.

It would appear that the attempt to pressure the Planning Commission has not only failed, but that it has actually backfired. It would appear that the Wilderness Wal-Mart project is going to be a go. What a tragedy, and what a terrible case of shortsightedness by those who ought to know better.

Continue reading

I had heard that the Eternal Peace Light Memorial at Gettysburg had been senselessly vandalized a couple of days ago, but I had not heard just how much damage was done. Then, our friends at Gettysburg Daily documented it on their blog today.

Some moron spray painted obscenities all over the Peace Light, spewing hate and damaging a monument to peace, brotherhood and unity dedicated at the final reunion of the veterans of the Battle of Gettysburg. As it was stated on Gettysburg Daily, “The words are profane, and the drawings are vulgar.” They are so bad, in fact, that the National Park Service had to cover the worst of it up with plywood.

It will cost a great deal of money to remove the spray paint, and it won’t be removed until the weather improves. Personally, I think that waterboarding followed by a trip to the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay would be an appropriate punishment for the perpetrators of this vandalism.

Continue reading

From today’s on-line version of the Gettysburg Times comes great news:

Country Club: NO SALE!

No bids; Bank retains club
BY JARRAD HEDES
Published: Friday, January 9, 2009 12:14 PM EST
Times Staff Writer

Fifty people packed a meeting room in the Adams County Courthouse on Friday morning, but no one bid on the 60-year-old Gettysburg Country Club, which was up for sheriff’s sale.

The upset bid for the club was announced at $2.79 million.

The lack of bids means the club, 730 Chambersburg Road, goes to Susquehanna Banks, which foreclosed on the property earlier this year.

On Friday, the bank agreed to pay $37, 109.76, which covered the costs of the sheriff sale and municipal liens of $11,687 owed to the Cumberland Township Municipal Authority and $17,506 owed to the Gettysburg Municipal Authority.

Eugene Pepinsky, an outside attorney for the bank, said his client would now likely attempt to sell the 120-acre property on its own.

In legal parlance, this means that the bank bid in the property based on its mortgage. Hopefully, the bank will be willing to deal with an appropriate preservation group to make sure that this battlefield land doesn’t end up as a cheesy shopping center or more little cheesebox houses.

Continue reading

Many thanks to regular reader Todd Berkoff for sending this article from today’s edition of the Washington Post:

Planning Agency Approves Homeland Security Complex
Preservationists Fear Effect on St. Elizabeths Campus
By Mary Beth Sheridan
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 9, 2009; B01

After years of battling historic preservationists, the federal government won approval yesterday to build a massive headquarters for the Department of Homeland Security on a 176-acre hilltop site east of the Anacostia River.

The $3.4 billion headquarters would be one of the largest construction projects in the Washington area since the Pentagon was built in the 1940s. Advocates say it would generate economic activity in one of the city’s poorer corners and provide a secure workplace for 14,000 Homeland Security employees scattered across the Washington area.

“This is an important step forward for Anacostia and for Washington,” said John V. Cogbill III, chairman of the National Capital Planning Commission, which voted 9 to 1 to approve the master plan for the headquarters, to be built on the grounds of St. Elizabeths Hospital.

Historical preservationists have said the project would ruin a national landmark site with panoramic views of the District, where the first federal psychiatric institution was established in Southeast Washington in 1852. Some questioned whether a high-security facility tucked behind two layers of fencing would produce much of a payoff for the neighborhood.

“The DHS employees might as well be working on the moon for all their presence will benefit the city,” testified David Garrison, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, who said that the personnel would largely commute from the suburbs.

The dissenting vote on the master plan came from a National Park Service representative, who warned that the development could endanger the site’s historic landmark status.

If Congress provides funding, construction will begin next year and continue through 2016, according to the plan. Building the complex and renovating existing historical structures would create at least 26,000 jobs, officials said.

“The timing is optimal,” said Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), who has championed the project. “Development has dried up in the city, and this is direct government-funded work.”

Under the plan, most of the facility would be built on the vacant western campus of St. Elizabeths, property owned by the federal General Services Administration. One large building would be constructed on land leased from the District on the eastern campus, where the D.C. government is hoping to lure offices, restaurants and shops.

Residents of nearby neighborhoods have expressed mixed feelings about the complex. James Bunn, executive director of the Ward 8 Business Council, predicted that Homeland Security’s migration would serve as a long-needed catalyst for new retail and housing in the Congress Heights community.

“Those 14,000 employees will need a place to live,” he said. “And they’ll need somewhere to eat. I can already see a coffee shop or a sit-down restaurant. It’s a win-win situation for the ward.”

But Linda Jackson, executive director of the East of the River Community Development Corp., questioned whether Homeland Security employees would leave their self-contained campus along Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue and frequent nearby businesses.

“More study should be done on what exactly the community benefits will be,” she said. “And there’s the traffic. There will be an overwhelming influx of people using roads and the Metro.”

The plan envisions widening part of Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue and developing an access road on the southwestern part of the campus. Shuttle buses would run from the Metro.

St. Elizabeths Hospital was built when Dorothea Dix, the social reformer, persuaded Congress to provide $100,000 for a model psychiatric hospital in 1852. The campus is thought to exemplify the ideas of a 19th-century movement that sought to improve care for the mentally ill through therapeutic design and environment.

District officials and the National Capital Planning Commission had balked at earlier plans to set up a giant agency headquarters on the western campus of St. Elizabeths, fearing that development would overwhelm the site.

To assuage their concerns, officials moved some of the proposed headquarters facilities onto the east campus, reduced the amount of parking and shifted new buildings away from the historic core.

Under the new plan, about 11,000 employees would work in 3.8 million square feet of space on the west campus, and the remaining 3,000 would be on the east campus, where the District still runs a mental health facility. The sites would have parking for about 5,000 cars.

Fifty-two of the 62 historic structures on the grounds would be renovated and used by the agency, including the Center Building, a red-brick structure in the Gothic-revival style that was designed by Thomas U. Walter, the architect responsible for the U.S. Capitol dome.

The first building to be constructed would be the Coast Guard headquarters. In addition to offices, the site would have a barbershop, cafeteria, child-care center and gym.

Authorities have been trying for years to find an institution to take over the long-neglected St. Elizabeths. But the cost of rescuing the run-down 19th-century buildings and overhauling the infrastructure was prohibitive.

Homeland Security officials said the site is ideal for their agency. The western campus is the largest piece of unused federal land in Washington, and the new buildings would sit far enough back from the street to avoid being shattered by a car bomb.

Staff writer Paul Schwartzman contributed to this story.

The following comes from the District of Columbia’s website, and describes the important role played by St. Elizabeth’s Hospital during the Civil War:

St. Elizabeths Hospital’s Expanded Role During the Civil War

St. Elizabeths Hospital in Washington, DC, originally known as the Government Hospital for the Insane, was established through the Civil and Diplomatic Appropriation Act of 1852. Dorothea Dix, its founder and the leading mental health reformer of the 19th century, wrote the law that articulated the hospital’s mission “to provide the most humane care and enlightened curative treatment of the insane of the Army, Navy and the District of Columbia.”

SEH was built as a 250-bed hospital. Thomas U. Walters, architect of the Capitol Building, drafted the plans for Center Building. Upon Dix’s recommendation, Charles H. Nichols, MD, was appointed the first Superintendent of the hospital by President Millard Fillmore in 1852 and served until 1877. He was responsible for the construction and operation of the hospital. Center Building was built in three phases: west wing, east wing, and the center administrative section last.

The facility was soon split into three distinct hospitals shortly after the outbreak of the Civil War. On October 10, 1861, Congress authorized temporary use of the unfinished east wing as a 250-bed general hospital for sick and wounded soldiers of the Union Army. West Lodge, for “colored insane males,” was converted into a 60-bed general and quarantine hospital for sailors of the Potomac and Chesapeake Fleets, and the patients from West Lodge were relocated to another building.

In 1863, an artificial limb manufacturing shop (patented by B.W. Jewett) opened to fit amputees with prostheses. Soldiers stayed until their wounds healed and they learned to use their artificial limbs. During this period, a portion of the hospital’s farm was converted to a Cavalry Depot and encampment for a Marine Company.

During the Civil War, wounded soldiers were reluctant to write home that they were being treated at the “Government Hospital for the Insane.” They began referring to the asylum as the St. Elizabeths, the colonial name of the tract of land. Congress officially changed the hospital’s name in 1916.

President Abraham Lincoln frequently visited soldiers at the hospitals. Overcrowding was inevitable during the war. Tents were erected behind Center Building to house convalescing soldiers.

Dr. Nichols, a volunteer surgeon for the St. Elizabeths Army General Hospital, often rode out to major battlefields around the DC area to treat casualties. He was introduced as one of General McDowell’s staff at the First Battle of Bull Run. Approximately one-fourth of St. Elizabeths’ male employees divided their time between the battlefields and hospital and patients stepped in to help provide hospital services.

I just hate to see this happen. Surely, there’s another piece of ground where the Homeland Security buildings could be constructed?

Continue reading