Battlefield preservation

There is presently a pending proposal by VDOT to widen Route 3 through the Stevensburg portion of the Brandy Station battlefield. If the original proposal is approved, that core sector of the battlefield will be largely obliterated. The reasons why this is not acceptable ought to be obvious. The Brandy Station Foundation objected, and fortunately, the Virginia Department of Historic Resources sided with the BSF.

From today’s edition of the Culpeper Star-Exponent:

DHR disputes VDOT’s Route 3 findings

By NATE DELESLINE
Published: March 25, 2011

On Thursday, another front emerged in the battle to widen Route 3 in the Stevensburg area, this time between the Department of Historic Resources and the Virginia Department of Transportation.

The DHR formally rejected an earlier VDOT report that claimed an expansion of the highway would have no adverse effects on the Brandy Station Civil War battlefield, Hansbrough’s Ridge, a Stevensburg-area hill that played a role in the war and a recently discovered, secluded natural spring.

In a letter to VDOT dated Thursday, Julie V. Langan of the DHR details the points of disagreement.

“After examining materials presented to us by VDOT and the consulting parties, listening to the views of all sides during the consulting parties meeting, driving the project corridor and studying the revised maps from the American Battlefield Protection Program, DHR must disagree with VDOT’s assessment of effect.”

The letter goes on to say that Hansbrough’s Ridge is a “dominant presence” on the area’s battlefield landscape and that VDOT should undertake efforts to minimize any adverse impacts.

“Additionally, we request that VDOT engineers explore again any possibilities to minimize the footprint of lane additions at Hansbrough’s Ridge in an effort to preserve as much of the ridgeline as possible.”

Finally, the DHR says a recently discovered historic spring, Wicked Bottom, must also be protected. A highway retention pond would take its place if the current plans were advanced.

Project in brief

At a public hearing on Wednesday, VDOT presented two options to expand a 5.1-mile, two-lane section of Route 3 between Stevensburg and Lignum to four lanes.

The first plan, estimated to cost $38.9 million, would widen the road along the existing track, with narrowed shoulders in some areas to minimize the impact to adjacent properties.

The second plan, estimated at $35 million, would construct a new highway route, bypassing Stevensburg to the north and rejoining the existing highway near Clay Hill Road. The second alignment would also cut out a section of Route 3 that’s had multiple fatal crashes in the past few years.

However, VDOT and law enforcement officials have said previously that driver error, deer strikes and inappropriate driving behaviors, not the inherent design of the two-lane road, are to blame for most of the problems.

VDOT Culpeper District spokesman Lou Hatter said the DHR’s review is part of the National Environmental Policy Act that applies to transportation projects using federal funds. Hatter also said that an adverse impact determination is common when projects impact historic resources.

“Addressing these types of questions typically takes 90 to 120 days after reviewing the public hearing comments and coordinating with DHR,” Hatter said late Thursday.

‘Zero sensitivity’

Brandy Station Foundation president Bud Hall said the DHR report vindicates everyone who championed protection of the nearby historic areas. He was also sharply critical of VDOT’s findings.

“It’s a shoddy piece of scholarship,” Hall said. “Their report showed absolute zero sensitivity. The report concluded that a four lane highway through Hansbrough’s Ridge and Stevensburg would have no adverse effect on the historic resources,” Hall said. “I thought it was ludicrous.

“The construction of a 150-foot wide highway with a 16-foot raised median in the center would effectively destroy historic landscape directly affiliated with the Stevensburg phase of the Battle of Brandy Station. DHR is to be commended and applauded for their correction of the record in this matter.”

In addition to the Brandy Station Foundation, Hall said the Germanna Foundation, Piedmont Environmental Council, the Civil War Trust and other groups went on the record to contest VDOT’s findings.

Asked what an acceptable transportation compromise would be, Hall said officials should mirror what was done in Upperville — a widened road with reduced speed limits and traffic calming elements. “Route 50 is busy if not busier and it’s a very safe model.”

Zann Nelson, a local historian and Star-Exponent columnist, also applauded Thursday’s DHR decision.

“DHR is really on top of things when the citizens come forward and raise questions,” she said. “That’s the way the system is supposed to work. If nobody questions a report, you can’t implement the checks and balances. As painful as it is, it is a system that is working properly.”

Kudos to DHR for doing the right thing. Hopefully, VDOT will now take steps to protect the battlefield. Thanks to Bud Hall for passing this along.

Continue reading

To give Wal-Mart a world of credit, it has done the right thing. Not only has it thrown in the towel and pulled the plug on the Wilderness superstore, it’s going to go ahead and purchase the land and then donate it in order to ensure that nobody else gets a chance to threaten it. I think Sam Walton would be proud.

From the CWT website:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 26, 2011

For more information, contact:
Jim Campi, (202) 367-1861 x7205
Mary Koik, (202) 367-1861 x7231

WALMART ABANDONS PLANS TO BUILD SUPERCENTER ON WILDERNESS BATTLEFIELD

Preservation community pleased with decision by retail giant to drop plans to build a supercenter within historic boundaries of Wilderness battlefield

(Orange, Va.) – In an unexpected development, Walmart announced this morning that it has abandoned plans to pursue a special use permit previously awarded to the retail giant for construction of a supercenter on the Wilderness Battlefield. The decision came as the trial in a legal challenge seeking to overturn the special use permit was scheduled to begin in Orange County circuit court.

“We are pleased with Walmart’s decision to abandon plans to build a supercenter on the Wilderness battlefield,” remarked James Lighthizer, president of the Civil War Trust. “We have long believed that Walmart would ultimately recognize that it is in the best interests of all concerned to move their intended store away from the battlefield. We applaud Walmart officials for putting the interests of historic preservation first. Sam Walton would be proud of this decision.”

The Civil War Trust is part of the Wilderness Battlefield Coalition, an alliance of local residents and national groups seeking to protect the Wilderness battlefield. Lighthizer noted that the Wilderness Battlefield Coalition has sought from the very beginning to work with county officials and Walmart to find an alternative location for the proposed superstore away from the battlefield.

“We stand ready to work with Walmart to put this controversy behind us and protect the battlefield from further encroachment,” Lighthizer stated. “We firmly believe that preservation and progress need not be mutually exclusive, and welcome Walmart as a thoughtful partner in efforts to protect the Wilderness Battlefield.”

In August 2009, the Orange County Board of Supervisors approved a controversial special use permit to allow construction of the Walmart Supercenter and associated commercial development on the Wilderness Battlefield. A wide range of prominent individuals and organizations publicly opposed the store’s location, including more than 250 American historians led by Pulitzer Prize-winners James McPherson and David McCullough. One month after the decision, a group of concerned citizens and the local Friends of Wilderness Battlefield filed a legal challenge to overturn the decision.

The Battle of the Wilderness, fought May 5–6, 1864, was one of the most significant engagements of the American Civil War. Of the 185,000 soldiers who entered combat amid the tangled mass of second-growth trees and scrub in Virginia’s Orange and Spotsylvania counties, some 30,000 became casualties. The Wilderness Battlefield Coalition, composed of Friends of Wilderness Battlefield, Piedmont Environmental Council, Preservation Virginia, National Trust for Historic Preservation, National Parks Conservation Association, and Civil War Trust, seeks to protect this irreplaceable local and national treasure.

The Civil War Trust is the largest nonprofit battlefield preservation organization in the United States. Its mission is to preserve our nation’s endangered Civil War battlefields and to promote appreciation of these hallowed grounds. To date, the Trust has preserved nearly 30,000 acres of battlefield land in 20 states. Learn more at www.civilwar.org.

Wal-Mart will find another location a few miles further west on Route 3 that is not historic ground, and it will build there with the blessing of those of us who care about these things.

From today’s edition of the Orange News

“We are actively pursuing another site along Route 3,” said Bill Wertz, divisional director for Walmart.

The retail giant said it would still purchase the 51 acres intended for the Wilderness Walmart in hopes of conserving the land.

“This will ensure the property is not commercially developed,” said Wertz, adding the land will be placed in conservation for perpetuity.

Kudos to Wal-Mart for finding a way to turn an ugly situation into a win-win, and kudos to everyone whose hard work made this possible, and especially to the CWT, the Central Virginia Battlefields Foundation, and the other preservation organizations who led the fight.

Continue reading

The trial to determine whether Orange County, Virginia officials properly approved the zoning variance to allow for the construction of the Wilderness Wal-Mart begins tomorrow. From MSNBC:

Civil War site is now a battlefield for Wal-Mart
Opponents of planned Virginia store to meet retailer in court Tuesday

By Steve Szkotak

Associated Press

1:15 p.m., Sunday, January 23, 2011

RICHMOND (AP) — Nearly 150 years after Gen. Robert E. Lee and Gen. Ulysses S. Grant fought in Northern Virginia, a conflict over the battlefield is taking shape in a courtroom.

The dispute involves whether a Walmart should be built near the Civil War site, and the case pits preservationists and some residents of a rural Northern Virginia town against the world’s largest retailer and local officials who approved the Walmart Supercenter.

Both sides are scheduled to make arguments before a judge Tuesday.

The proposed Walmart is located near the site of the Battle of the Wilderness, which is viewed by historians as a critical turning point in the war. An estimated 185,000 Union and Confederate troops fought over three days in 1864, and 30,000 were killed, injured or went missing. The war ended 11 months later.

The 143,000-square-foot space planned by the Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart Stores Inc. would be outside the limits of the protected national park where the core battlefield is located. The company has stressed the store would be within an area already dotted with retail locations and in an area zoned for commercial use.

The Orange County Board of Supervisors in August 2009 approved the special-use permit Wal-Mart needed to build, but the National Trust for Historic Preservation and residents who live within three miles of the site challenged the board’s decision.

They argued, in part, that supervisors ignored or rejected the help of historians and other preservation experts when they approved the store’s construction in Locust Grove, about 1 mile from the national park entrance.

Hundreds of people, including Pulitzer Prize-winning historian James McPherson, filmmaker Ken Burns and actor Robert Duvall, have appealed to Wal-Mart to walk away and find another place to build in the county of less than 35,000 people.

Mr. McPherson is expected to testify that the store’s site and nearby acres were blood-soaked ground and a Union “nerve center” in the battle. Grant’s headquarters and his senior leaders were encamped near the site of the proposed store, and Union casualties were treated there or in an area destined to be the store’s parking lot, Mr. McPherson wrote in a summary of his testimony.

“Among other things, thousands of wounded and dying soldiers occupied the then open fields that included the Walmart site, which is where many of the Union Army hospital tents were located during the battle,” Mr. McPherson wrote.

An attorney representing Orange County argued the board and other officials acted properly and heard the opinions of hundreds of people before approving the store.

“There is no indication that any significant historical event occurred on this land,” Sharon E. Pandak wrote in an e-mail to the Associated Press. “No state or federal law precludes development of the site.”

Robert D. Rosenbaum, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said he plans to call descendants of Union and Confederate soldiers to testify. The dispute resonates beyond Virginia, where most of the Civil War was fought, he said.

“As we approach the 150th anniversary of the beginning of the Civil War, this case is a watershed that will demonstrate whether we as a society are really interested in protecting our national heritage,” he said.

In Orange County, many residents and community leaders have welcomed the store. It would create 300 jobs and tax revenue, and there would be a convenient big-box store in the county.

A spokesman for Wal-Mart said the retailer is hopeful the court proceedings will clear the way for construction.

“We believe the board made a careful and thoughtful decision that balances historic preservation concerns with the need for economic development,” spokesman Bill Wertz said.

We can only hope that the judge gets it right and that he reverses the decision of the Orange County Supervisors.

In the meantime, the rest of us have a vote, and I hope that you will all join me in exercising it–boycott Wal-Mart, Sam’s Club, and anything remotely related to this Evil Empire. If enough of us boycott the company, perhaps it will finally pay attention to the wishes of the public.

Continue reading

This article from Newsweek is one of the best discussions of why we fight the good fight to preserve our Civil War battlefield heritage, as well as spelling out the reasons why we can never, ever let our guard down. The fight will go on…..

Battle Over the Battlefields
One hundred and fifty years after the start of the Civil War, we’re still fighting. This time it’s development vs. preservation—and development’s winning.

A casino could soon sit near the Gettysburg battlefield, the bloodiest encounter on American soil. A Walmart supercenter may shadow the Wilderness battlefield in Virginia where Gen. U. S. Grant kept his headquarters when he first fought Gen. Robert E. Lee. And Washington, D.C.’s suburban sprawl is slowly strangling the rural lands where the Civil War’s first crucial battles were fought. It’s an ironic situation: as battlefield sites across the country prepare for an expected onslaught of visitors connected to the Civil War’s 150th anniversary, many of them are shrinking away, acre by acre.

April 12 will mark the sesquicentennial of the start of the war, and governments and citizens across the country are gearing up to commemorate it. Visitation at Civil War–related national parks has already been on the rise, increasing 6.4 percent between 2008 and 2009 after mostly flat numbers in prior years. The National Park Service has reworked its approach to teaching the war’s history to make it more focused on causes and effects. In anticipation of the anniversary, PBS plans to re-air Ken Burns’s landmark documentary on the war, and The New York Times and The Washington Post have already launched special commemorative blogs and news coverage. All the while, however, development at sites around the country is destroying Civil War battlefields at a frantic rate—30 acres a day, according to the Civil War Trust (CWT), a leading heritage conservation group—fast enough to eat up what’s left of the Gettysburg battlefield park in just seven months. “[Battlefield visitors] don’t want to see the parking lot where their ancestors once fought that’s now a shopping center,” says Jim Campi, policy director of CWT. “They want to walk through the woods and see the cannon and the fence lines.”

This month, two high-profile conflicts over further development on the sites of major battles will come to a head. Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board officials are expected to decide whether to allow a casino several miles southwest of the Gettysburg battlefield.. The Mason-Dixon Resort and Casino has become a cause célèbre for Civil War buffs, who have held it up as the best example of crass commercialism making inroads into the “hallowed ground” where more than 51,000 soldiers died. And in Virginia, a judge will hear arguments in a suit that aims to prevent the planned Walmart that is—depending on whom you ask—either adjacent to or on the Wilderness battlefield. These two standoffs are part of a larger debate that raises many of the same questions as the mosque controversy in lower Manhattan: What constitutes hallowed ground, what can you build near or on it, and how soon is too soon?

“There has to be a reasonable balance,” says James McPherson, the foremost living Civil War historian and professor emeritus of history at Princeton. “If you preserved every square foot of battlefield in Virginia, there wouldn’t be much land left. There’s a tendency among preservationists to want to save everything, but realistically there have to be compromises.”

One place McPherson isn’t willing to compromise, however, is the Virginia Walmart, a 140,000-square-foot supercenter the company wants to build in Orange County on a parcel that’s been zoned for commercial use for 37 years. The bloody May 1864 encounter fought there was the beginning of the end for the Confederacy. In Grant’s first battle since becoming chief of the U.S. Army, he pounded Lee and began driving him south toward Richmond. Historians say his army’s “nerve center,” including his own headquarters, was located on and near the Walmart site, which is also across the street from the entrance to the Fredericksburg & Spotsylvania National Military Park.

In August 2009, the Orange County board of supervisors issued a special-use permit for Walmart to build its store, but with several conditions—including setting the building back from the road, traffic mitigation, and other safeguards to reduce the project’s impact on the park. That wasn’t enough for historians, who say shrubs may block the view from the highway, but won’t prevent a huge store from destroying the landscape. As a result, the pushback against Walmart’s plans has been especially fierce. The nonprofit preservation group Friends of Wilderness Battlefield has sued the board of supervisors, Walmart, the developer, and the property owner in an attempt to stop the store, and they’ve received help from McPherson, who appeared as an expert witness and National Park Service Director Jonathan Jarvis, among others. Plaintiffs say they don’t object to Walmart building in Orange County, but want it to move to a less historic spot.

The disagreement epitomizes disputes across the country: local officials, eager to spur economic growth, want to open lands for housing or commerce. In Orange County, for example, Walmart says it will create some 300 jobs, and says a survey it conducted in early 2009 found that 61 percent of residents backed its plan. But historians and preservationists fight back, saying development mars the historic value, cheapens the sacrifices made by thousands in the war, and impairs the ability of historians and visitors to understand the battles that took place. Preservationists also worry that development may actually cut into the economy: around many battlefield sites, tourism is a lucrative and sometimes dominant business—it accounted for $2.5 billion in spending in Civil War parks in 2008 alone, according to the National Parks Conservation Association—but they say modern intrusions could dilute that value and drive away tourists, resulting in a net contraction.

Conflicts like the one in Orange County are the fruits of seeds sown more than a century ago. In the years immediately following the war, most battlefields were maintained by veterans’ organizations such as the Grand Army of the Republic and the United Confederate Veterans, which played major roles in establishing parks like Gettysburg and the present-day Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park (the National Park Service didn’t exist until 1916, and only took Civil War sites over from the War Department in the 1930s). As the sites became national parks, however, the scale of preservation was still minimal—the idea that urbanization would ever touch such remote farmlands seemed so absurd that park boundaries often included only historic stretches of road and significant structures. Though not formally preserved, fields remained in the same condition they had been in when Confederate and Union troops met. Now, however, urban sprawl has overtaken many of these areas, and threatens others. Once-remote parts of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, comprising most of the war’s eastern theater, are increasingly bedroom communities for Washington, D.C. “A lot of people have a misunderstanding that if it’s battlefield land, it’s within the boundaries of the park,” Smith laments. “We hold maybe one seventh of the battlefield. It would be totally unrealistic for us to hold all of it. We have to get the local community to understand that while we’re not going to preserve it, they do deserve to be treated with some sensitivity.”

The modern Civil War preservation movement dates back to the 1980s, when major D.C. area developer Til Hazel announced a plan to build a huge mall on part of the Manassas battlefield. The development was eventually blocked by an act of Congress that took over the land and provided Hazel compensation for it, later pegged by a court at $130 million. Since then, preservation groups have become more aggressive, led by the Civil War Trust, which has bought up 25,000 acres of land using private donations and matching grants. And there have been notable victories, especially the 2000 demolition of a much-reviled observation tower at Gettysburg, which had been erected in 1974 by a private developer on a patch of the battlefield not owned by the Park Service, over noisy objections. In another victory, CWT prevented the building of a racetrack at Brandy Station, Va., site of a major cavalry battle in 1863.

Economic strife has helped the cause, too. The housing developments that were a frequent threat to rural land have come to a halt since the collapse of the housing market—a reprieve, but by no means a guarantee, that new attempts won’t follow when the sector rebounds. Meanwhile, some landowners have turned to preservation as more lucrative than selling to developers. While there are still some 600 acres of land inside the Gettysburg park that aren’t preserved or protected, the park recently demolished two 20th-century houses acquired when the owners offered to sell them.

But in quite a few cases, it’s too late. Many of the battlefields in the western theater—including Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and Georgia—are long gone. Others are hemmed in and reduced significantly; the Chantilly battlefield in northern Virginia “is a postage stamp now,” Campi says. And despite the stoppage of Hazel’s plan, the Manassas park is sliced by U.S. 29 (the Lee Highway, appropriately enough) and State Route 234.

Preservation has its skeptics, too. Proponents are often attacked as being antidevelopment, or simply of overreaching. The Gettysburg casino is, to detractors, the textbook case. Unlike the Wilderness Walmart, the proposed casino is actually five miles out of town, in neighboring Cumberland Township. If approved, the casino will include up to 500 slot machines—the smallest of three sizes allowed under state rules—and will be located at an existing resort, rather than in new, purpose-built structures. David LaTorre, a spokesman for the developer, points out that there are far more egregious infractions in the town itself. “People talk about how this is like building a McDonald’s next to Pickett’s Charge, but there is a McDonald’s there,” he says with only mild exaggeration.

The Civil War Trust remains staunchly opposed, and it’s got a host of celebrities on its side—including Ken Burns, author David McCullough, and actor Sam Waterston. The site is just too close to the battlefield, and the impact of development and traffic on the historical resources is too great, Campi says. The local community, too, is split into pro-casino and anti-casino sides—a small civil war, 150 years after the big one.

There are some interesting comments with the article on the Newsweek website.

The factual error regarding the number of casualties at the Battle of Gettysburg notwithstanding, this article makes the point that we can never rest, never stop being vigilant and diligent in protecting and preserving our heritage. I remain grateful to organizations like the Civil War Trust (which has a new name and a new logo as of last week), the Central Virginia Battlefields Trust, the Brandy Station Foundation, the Trevilian Station Battlefield Foundation, and other similar organizations that are out there doing great work every day to help preserve our heritage.

Please support their efforts with your time and your dollars. Do it for the generations that will follow.

Continue reading

Friends, we have a chance to create a new battlefield park at a place that’s near and dear to my heart, Monterey Pass, in Blue Ridge Summit, Pennsylvania. From yesterday’s edition of The Waynesboro Record-Herald newspaper:

Monterey Pass Civil War battlefield in line for grant
Donations needed to match funds to create interpretive center

By Denise Bonura
The Record Herald
Posted Oct 19, 2010 @ 01:13 PM

Blue Ridge Summit, Pa. —

The Monterey Pass Battlefield Association is one step closer to preserving the history of the Civil War battle, thanks to a grant from the state Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.

DCNR announced last week Washington Township will receive $41,900 of a matching grant if the remaining funds are raised to acquire nearly 1 acre of land near the Rolando Woods Park off of Charmian Road.

The battlefield association hopes to eventually create an interpretive center to tell the story of the Battle of Monterey Pass, the second largest conflict fought on Northern soil during the Civil War.

Collecting funds

Washington Township Manager Mike Christopher said the announcement is exciting news for the area. The township and the battlefield association began collecting donations earlier this year in hopes of receiving the grant. Christopher said more than $4,000 has been raised so far and donations have been sent from Louisiana, Florida, California, Michigan and Ohio, along with donations from township residents.

“We knew it was a matching grant and we felt we had a strong application, so we started collecting donations,” Christopher explained. “This is a wonderful opportunity to teach our young folks what happened in their own backyard. This piece of history took place right here in our hometown. I think that’s pretty exciting.”

“We have donations coming in from across the country,” John Miller, founder of the Monterey Pass Battlefield association, continued. “When you’re reaching across the country, that does say something. If the property is secured, it will be a great place for students to learn not only the importance of history, but the importance of natural resources.”

The battle

The Battle of Monterey Pass, fought July 4 and 5, 1863, began in Fountaindale as Confederate forces limped back to the South after the Battle of Gettysburg. It was the only battle fought on both sides of the Mason-Dixon Line.

“Every soldier that wrote about the Battle of Monterey Pass said the roads were overflowing with water,” Miller said in June. “Their rubberized boots and gum blankets didn’t even protect them from the elements.”

Forces from both sides had to wait for the lightning to illuminate the battleground to position themselves strategically and fire their weapons as they fought in the dark, according to Miller.

The Battle of Monterey Pass, resulting from the Confederate retreat from the Battle of Gettysburg that ended the day before, also was unique for another reason, according to Miller. It was fought in four different counties — Adams and Franklin counties in Pennsylvania and Frederick and Washington counties in Maryland.

“The battle (was) much larger than people think,” said Miller.

Fundraiser

The next fundraiser for the project will be a presentation on the battle and the Civil War by Miller, renowned historian Ed Bearss and Ted Alexander, historian for the Antietam National Battlefield Association at 6 p.m. Friday, Nov. 5, in the Blue Ridge Summit fire hall.

The cost is $35 and refreshments will be served.

Christopher said there are already 40 people registered for the event, hailing from Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, New York and Michigan.

Tax-deductible donations to help preserve the battlefield can be sent to the township office at 13013 Welty Road, Waynesboro, Pa. 17268. Checks should be made payable to Washington Township. Donations can also be sent via the Battlefield Association’s website.

On the Net

www.emmitsburg.net/montereypass

www.washtwp-franklin.org
Copyright 2010 Waynesboro Record Herald. Some rights reserved

I know that times are tough, but this is really a very worthy cause. John Miller has worked long and hard to bring this about, and his efforts are about to really pay off. If you can spare a few dollars, please do, and help launch this new battlefield park.

Continue reading

This video was played at the hearing before the Pennsylvania Gaming Commission today. No one who was involved in its production was paid. It’s 9:13 long, but those are nine magnificent minutes, and I commend this video to you: Our Gettysburg Legacy

I was asked to testify at the hearing. If I had been able to put together a panel, I would have rushed to do so. In spite of our differences in interpretation, Andrea Custer is as dedicated to the South Cavalry Field as I am, and she is also opposed to the project. Unfortunately, she had a professional obligation out of town. J. D. Petruzzi was scheduled to have hand surgery today. I couldn’t put together a panel, which would have given us 30 minutes to present our opposition due to scheduling conflicts, I would have been limited to three minutes of testimony. I could not justify twelve hours of driving for three minutes of testimony, so I didn’t go. I couldn’t possibly have added anything to this video. It says all that there is to say.

Please continue to do what you can to help fight this abomination. And thank you for your support.

Continue reading

With thanks to regular reader Barry Dussel for bringing this horrifying news to my attention….

Once upon a time, the Gettysburg Battlefield Protection Association really stood for battlefield preservation. It fought long and hard against the loss of the railroad cut on the first day’s battlefield–I even offered my professional services to help in that fight as a young lawyer–and it saved the Daniel Lady Farm, which although little fighting took place there, was an important spot linking the Benner’s Hill area to the Culp’s Hill sector of the battlefield. The organization did great work then.

That, however, was then. This is now. And now, the GBPA has sold its soul to the devil by coming out in favor of the casino proposal. Here’s the horrifying press release:

Gettysburg Battlefield Preservation Association Endorses Mason-Dixon Resort Project

Gettysburg – The Gettysburg Battlefield Preservation Association (GBPA) today announced its support of the proposed Mason-Dixon Resort project.

The GBPA is the oldest Civil War preservation group in the nation. Since its inception 50 years ago, the land the GBPA has secured over the years now constitutes one-third of the present day Gettysburg National Military Park, a park visited by nearly two million visitors a year.

Brendan Synnamon, GBPA president, said the group’s board of directors initially determined to take no position on the project last January but, after months of learning project details, voted to support it.

“The Gettysburg Battlefield Preservation Association would not support a commercial project that would use or impinge upon the battlefield. This has been a longstanding Association policy and this has not changed,” Synnamon said.

“In this case, the Eisenhower Conference Center, located well south of the Battlefield and which would be converted into the Mason-Dixon Resort, already exists as a commercial facility and the resort would not go beyond its already existing boundaries. This is a far different circumstance than taking open, undeveloped space near the battlefield and building all new structures. The existing Eisenhower Conference Center has never interfered with nor detracted from the Gettysburg Battlefield and its reuse as the Mason-Dixon Resort likewise will not interfere nor detract from the Gettysburg Battlefield,” Synnamon stated.

“Our primary mission and focus are on preservation,” asserted Synnamon. “We find, after very thorough review, that the proposed Mason-Dixon Resort project does not represent a preservation issue. The property site under discussion played no significant role in the three-day engagement.”

“The Board of Directors of the GBPA regard the proposed project as a local issue. The board is aware that the economy of the Gettysburg area and Adams County is hurting. We need jobs. We need more private investment. We could use additional visitation. The Mason-Dixon Resort offers all these things and would do so without one square inch of battlefield or nearby undeveloped open space being developed,” Synnamon said.

He added: “A stronger local economy is helpful to the cause of preservation. Preservation does not exist in a vacuum. Our local preservation work cannot thrive absent a local economy that helps induce and support it.”

“What is more, the proposed project is not on the scale and scope of what exists at large casinos. The Mason-Dixon Resort would have no more than 600 slot machines and 50 table games, which is considerably smaller than attractions at the large casinos.”

Synnamon said “It is the GBPA board’s belief that the Resort will draw more people to visit the Gettysburg area and encourage them to stay longer because there will be more to see and do here, not only with the resort but with the non-gaming components of the resort and the surrounding region from Biglerville south to the Mason-Dixon Line, and from Cashtown east to Wrightsville.

“In addition to the direct positive impact on jobs, the added visitors and visitor hours the resort will encourage will also bring in new tax and other revenues to the local communities and county.”

On the question of whether the proposed project would affect heritage tourism, the GBPA Board strongly believes the Gettysburg Battlefield has a unique position among all Civil War-related sites. It is considered the place where the tide of the war changed. It is considered the most significant battle of the War, and led to President Lincoln’s defining the Union cause in honoring the dead at Gettysburg.

“Our heritage-based tourism exists because of this and this does not change,” added Synnamon. “The battlefield, this hallowed ground, will always be here, and so should economically sound communities around it .” Synnamon stated.

This statement from casino opponents sums it all up: “This is the second time that the GBPA’s stance contrasts with the stance of every national and statewide battlefield preservation organization,” said No Casino head Susan Star Paddock. “Their statement contrasts with world-renown historians and they are the smallest preservation group by far.”

She quite correctly added, “I don’t understand what the GBPA is hoping to accomplish by courting favors for casino investors.” Precisely. It’s called selling one’s soul to the Devil.

Let’s examine the hypocrisy of that, shall we?

The Lady Farm, which saw little fighting, and is more than a mile from Culp’s Hill is worthy of saving, but actual battlefield land half a mile south of the park boundary isn’t? Say what?

I can’t help but wonder whose palm got greased here, what unholy deal was cut by the board of the GBPA to sell its soul to the devil.

I can tell you this, though: I will NEVER support the organization again, and bringing it down is now one of my prime motivations. What’s more, I vigorously encourage every one of my readers to let these Judases know precisely what you think of their sell-out. Withdraw your support. Turn off the funding spigot, and instead send those funds to a REAL battlefield preservation organization, the CWPT.

LET THESE SELL-OUTS KNOW THAT THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AND THAT YOU WILL NOT SUPPORT THEIR SELLING THEIR SOULS TO THE DEVIL. MAKE YOUR THOUGHTS KNOWN. WITHDRAW YOUR SUPPORT, AND TURN OFF THE FUNDING SPIGOT. LET THE GBPA KNOW THAT IT HAS DEFAULTED UPON ITS PROMISE TO PRESERVE AND PROTECT THE BATTLEFIELD AT GETTYSBURG AND THAT YOU WILL NOT STAND FOR IT!!!!

Continue reading

With my deep gratitude to regular reader Christ Liebegott, who brought this to my attention in a comment to yesterday’s post, I give you some more compelling arguments as to why a Gettysburg casino is a really bad idea. To be honest, there are plenty of online casino sites offering great deals, plus this Mecca Bingo Promo Code brings rewards by signing up for an account then you’ll get £ 50 to play, so you don’t have to spend money from your pocket in your first few rounds….

From the August 7 edition of The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review newspaper:

Rivers Casino short of revenue projections

By Rick Stouffer
PITTSBURGH TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Saturday, August 7, 2010

One year after its grand opening, Rivers Casino is performing woefully short of its own revenue projections and estimates by the state Gaming Control Board, and industry watchers and rating agencies are concerned. In addition, as you can see at https://www.barbadosbingo.com not all casinos are better at their first year, as you read more, you’ll understand why.

Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services, which follows the casino’s fortunes for investors in the parent company’s debt, downgraded the North Shore casino’s debt ratings three times in the past year.

“They spent about $800 million on the property, one of the most expensive in the state, but the most recent figures show its revenues are fifth or sixth (out of nine) casinos in the state,” said Michael Listner, an S&P analyst who follows Rivers Casino’s parent, Holdings Gaming Borrower LP. “It’s pretty mediocre results.”

Elected officials say they are pleased with the performance of Pennsylvania’s casino industry as a whole after nearly four years of legal slots and billions of dollars in tax revenue. But analysts don’t like what they see in Pittsburgh.

“As of Aug. 1, the Rivers’ revenue since opening was about $217 million,” said Frank Gamrat, a senior research associate with the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy in Castle Shannon. “The owners projected $427 million in revenue in its first year, and the Gaming Board projected $362 million. The casino’s not living up to its hype.”

All casinos take time to ramp up operations, to determine things like the proper mix of employees and the total number of workers needed, experts said.

“It’s not uncommon for properties to take up to a year to reach operational efficiencies in their operations,” said Grant Govertsen, a partner and analyst with investment bank Union Gaming Group in Las Vegas.

Casino leaders say the newness of being able to locally and legally play a pick of more than 2,800 slot machines and, for the past month, table games hasn’t worn off at Rivers after a year.

“We’re very pleased with the business we’ve done,” said Todd Moyer, Rivers’ general manager.

Some industry watchers say the idea of being able to gamble legally in Pennsylvania remains fresh at all nine casinos in operation.

“The only domestic gaming market that hasn’t suffered considerably from the adverse effects of credit markets drying up and the recession was Pennsylvania,” said Eugene Christiansen, CEO of Christiansen Capital Advisors LLC of New York. “Because the state actually was late to legalize slots, you had all the people who were used to going to West Virginia or New York staying home to go to the bright, shiny, new facilities.”

Like his Rivers’ counterpart, Sean Sullivan, general manager of The Meadows Racetrack & Casino, is happy with his facility’s performance.

“We’re very pleased with the wagers,” Sullivan said from the North Strabane location, which opened a temporary casino in June 2007 and its permanent facility in April 2009. In 2008, The Meadows was projected to gross $118 million. It grossed more than $231 million.

“We’re doing extremely well during the midweek,” Sullivan said. “We need more parking.”

Data from the state Gaming Control Board shows that since Pennsylvania’s first casino opened in November 2006, gamblers wagered more than $76.9 billion, and the facilities paid out $70.2 billion.

Last year, the nine operating casinos sent to Harrisburg nearly $1.1 billion in taxes — nearly a quarter-billion dollars more than Nevada’s 260 casinos sent to Carson City. However, Pennsylvania’s casinos pay a 55 percent tax, and Nevada levies an 8 percent tax.

“We are very pleased with how all the casinos are performing,” said gaming board Chairman Greg Fajt. “Since November 2006, when the first casino opened in the state, $3.8 billion in tax revenue has been generated, which has meant $2.1 billion in property tax relief, about $190 per year for each property owner.”

Fajt further broke down the money collected from Pennsylvania’s 55 percent tax, including $335 million to the communities where the casinos are located, $687 million to the state’s horse racing bets and payouts industry, which he said was “flat on its back” prior to the influx of gaming levies, $290 million to economic development and tourism, and $125 million to fire departments statewide.

“The casinos have surpassed my expectations tenfold,” Gov. Ed Rendell said Friday during a visit to Pittsburgh. “When you consider that Pennsylvania’s tax revenues from gaming last year surpassed those of Nevada, that 125,000 seniors have had their property taxes eliminated, that another 235,000 had their property taxes cut by 50 percent, that the Penguins aren’t playing in Kansas City because of gaming funds, I’m ecstatic about gaming.”

Rivers pays $7.5 million annually to help pay off the $321 million Consol Energy Center. The agreement to build the replacement for Mellon Arena in the Hill District helped keep the hockey team in Pittsburgh.

Fajt said the No. 1 issue with all of the casinos was job creation.

“The casinos have created more than 12,700 jobs directly tied to the gaming industry, both slots and table games,” the gaming board chief said. The average annual wage of the created positions is between $35,000 and $45,000, he added.

“The Rivers is a world-class facility — a great addition to the waterfront,” said Megan Dardanell, spokeswoman for Allegheny County Executive Dan Onorato. “It’s contributed property taxes on that site, and the casino has been a wonderful community partner, contributing to the funding of the Consol Energy Center, plus it’s another entertainment venue.”

But S&P’s downgrades don’t breed confidence.

“I don’t think things are as rosy at the casino as they say,” Gamrat said. “And we know that the casino industry’s revenues slack off in the fall.”

S&P’s Listner said he remains concerned that Holdings Gaming can generate enough cash at Rivers to make payments on its debt as well as maintain the property.

“The opinions of rating agencies have no impact whatsoever on the operations of Rivers Casino,” responded Rivers spokesman Jack Horner.

Property maintenance, specifically casino upgrades, can become a big strain for any casino, consultant Christiansen said. Casino owners must spend huge amounts of capital every five to seven years to refresh their properties.

“Those in the casino industry always are trying to make themselves the next great property by constantly updating, adding new equipment,” Listner said. “Five years down the road could be a real challenge for the Rivers’ owners. We’re concerned now with the level of cash flow to meet debt service as well as upkeep.”

In short, the Rivers Casino in Pittsburgh, which was successfully pitched based on all of the same arguments being advanced by the idiots who think that a half mile south of the southern boundary of the Gettysburg battlefield is a great place for a casino, is not performing anywhere close to the projections for its performance. The actual numbers are almost 50% below those originally projected by the owners, and it has been downgraded by Standard & Poors three times in the past year. And this was the most expensive casino in the state.

To the people of Adams County who support this terrible idea: Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.

Again, please join in me in doing all you can to prevent this from happening.

Continue reading

The following editorial appeared in today’s edition of the Philadelphia Inquirer:

Casinos again pose a threat to battlefield
It is altogether fitting and proper that gambling be kept away from Gettysburg’s hallowed ground.

By Mindy Crawford

In the months and years to come, Americans can expect to witness and participate in a wide variety of events commemorating the 150th anniversary of the Civil War. Official committees and commissions in numerous states, including Pennsylvania, are planning reenactments, exhibits, lectures, concerts, tours, and other opportunities to mark the occasion. The vast majority of events are planned to highlight the significance of this turning point in American history, to encourage thoughtful commemorations befitting such a solemn theme.

But here in the Keystone State, there is one proposal up for state approval that is markedly different. We Pennsylvanians are confronted with a proposal that runs radically counter to that far-reaching commitment to the remembrance of what happened on the now-deathless fields where the Civil War was decided. The question before the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board: whether, on the eve of the Civil War sesquicentennial, to license a casino at the gateway to America’s most blood-soaked battlefield.

That’s right – should gambling be given a Gettysburg address?

If this all sounds a bit too familiar, it should. Less than five years ago, the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board rejected a prior proposal to build a casino on the doorstep of the Gettysburg battlefield, partially on the strength of the impassioned outcry from around the state and across the country. Now, however, another group of investors has again raised the specter of this ill-conceived idea, and chosen an even worse location for the venture.

Though the investors continue to make the argument that the casino would bring much-needed jobs to Adams County, the economic viability of an Adams County casino location is questionable, at best. A key argument made in the previous application was that a Gettysburg casino would draw patrons from Baltimore and Washington, logic that has also been applied to the current site. However, the explosion of gambling facilities throughout the Mid-Atlantic, vying for the same customers as an Adams County location, totally undermines a business model that the gaming board found questionable when it rejected the previous application.

Worse yet, a casino could have a disastrous impact on Gettysburg’s heritage tourism-based economy. In Vicksburg, Miss. – home to a similarly famed battlefield of that war – the development of casinos was accompanied by a drastic decline in visitation to the National Park and a slow strangling of the local, tourism-based economy. Risking a similar outcome is a gamble Gettysburg cannot afford.

Such irresponsible and incompatible development also seriously threatens to undermine the sanctity of the famed Gettysburg landscape. Casino proponents have put forth a variety of creative measurements to distort the site’s location and significance, but the truth is this: The casino would be located just a half-mile from the boundary of the Gettysburg National Military Park, on land identified as historically sensitive by the American Battlefield Protection Program, an arm of the National Park Service. Suggesting that the battlefield and the visitors’ experience somehow stops at the administrative, political boundary of a park, as investors attempt to do, is simply ludicrous.

Similarly, to imagine that a development of this type and scope will not spawn further inappropriate growth at the largely rural edges of the battlefield is naive. So, too, is believing that all of the promises made by casino investors as they seek their license, such as limiting construction to retrofitting existing buildings, will be kept once approval is granted. Bitter, long-term reality indicates that should amendments to state gaming laws be considered again in the future – as they were this winter, when table games were approved and the application process for this remaining license was reopened – this and other gaming locations will continue to grow to the maximum permissible size.

Next year, the beginning of the sesquicentennial will serve as a time for Pennsylvanians, and all Americans, to commemorate our past and celebrate our future. The two, of course, go hand in hand. Recently, nearly 280 historians wrote to Gaming Control Board chairman Gregory Fajt that the casino threatens the “essential meaning of Gettysburg’s place in American history.” And on the eve of our Civil War’s sesquicentennial, protecting that legacy is particularly critical.

Ms. Crawford is, of course, absolutely correct. The statistics about visitation to the Vicksburg battlefield declining substantially after the opening of a casino there are especially telling and provide all of the reasons necessary to oppose this hare-brained idea. Once more, I call on all of my readers to do all you can to oppose this stupid idea.

Continue reading

From the June 28, 2010 edition of Fredericksburg Daily, I am pleased to report another important preservation victory at Brandy Station:

Brandy Station win

Another victory for preservationists at Brandy Station

Date published: 7/28/2010

IMAGINE: It could have been a 3.4-million-square-foot development of condominiums, a multiplex theater, a water park, an equestrian center, a hotel and asphalt, lots of asphalt. Instead, thanks to some generous landowners, 443 acres in Culpeper County, part of the Brandy Station battlefield, has been preserved.

The property, owned by brothers Chuck and Pete Gyory, joins another piece of battlefield land–349 acres owned by Beauregard Farms LP–placed in conservation easements. These two parcels bring the total property in Culpeper and Western Fauquier counties donated by landowners in recent years to more than 2,000 acres. Civil War buffs are rightfully overjoyed.

It’s difficult to imagine a 19th-century field of conflict when houses and shopping centers have overcome the land, hence the value of conservation easements. These leave the land in the hands of the property owners, who give up the rights to develop it in exchange for tax credits.

The 1863 Battle of Brandy Station marked the beginning of the Gettysburg Campaign. Gen. Robert E. Lee had amassed his army near Culpeper, preparing to make the march north. Gen. J.E.B. Stuart’s cavalry was centered at Fleetwood Hill near Brandy Station.

A Union cavalry detachment in Fauquier County discovered Stuart’s presence and, early in the morning of June 9, initiated a surprise attack. What followed was a 12-hour, saber-on-saber battle around St. James Church and all over Fleetwood Hill–the largest calvary engagement of the Civil War. One Confederate cavalryman later wrote that the Union attack on the guns positioned at St. James Church was “the most brilliant and glorious” cavalry charge of the war.

The fascination with the Civil War only seems to grow. Motives and methodologies, strategies and personalities come to light as we study and learn. America’s great family feud created heroes and villains and left scars that still linger. Binding up the nation’s wounds is made easier when battlefields are preserved. Now, thanks to landowners, the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, and the Civil War Preservation Trust, part of the Brandy Station battlefield will withstand one more attack–from 21st-century development.

However, the funds still have to be raised to pay for these conservation easements, and although there is a major matching grant, the BSF and APCWS still have $67,000 to raise in order to meet the requirements for the matching grant funds. Please visit the CWPT’s 2010 Brandy Station Campaign page and do what you can to help save nearly 800 acres of prime battlefield land.

And thank you for your continuing support of our efforts to forever preserve this jewel in Culpeper County.

Continue reading