Battlefield Preservation, Part 2

One aspect of battlefield preservation that was not addressed yesterday is the issue of picking and choosing.

Some preservationists draw a line in the sand each and every time that someone even remotely threatens something that they consider to be important. Their posture is much like that of the NRA–never, ever give an inch because it will lead to giving yards. The problems with that approach are numerous:

1. It causes people to look at preservationists as unreasonable and irrational.
2. It means that relationships with developers and zoning authorities are contentious instead of cooperative.
3. It means that everything is costly and emotional when it need not be so.
4. It means that, at times, the baby ends up being thrown out with the bathwater.

In short, this sort of approach may win the occasional battle, but it usually loses wars. People get the perception that preservationists are irrational nut cases who cannot and will not listen to reason.

There are, of course, times when this sort of approach is necessary. The battlefield at Brandy Station probably would not have been saved if it had not been for this sort of full court press, and everyone–including me–celebrating the success there.

I tend to take a much more pragmatic approach to these things. Perhaps it’s my professional life coming through. When I was a young lawyer oh so many years ago, an old gray beard asked me if I knew what a good settlement was. When I said no, he told me that a good settlement is one that both sides walk away from equally unhappy. That made a lot of sense to me, and as events have played out in my career, this statement has proved to be very true.

Consequently, I recognize that not every parcel can or should be saved. I know that what I’m about to say is sacriligious, but I didn’t cry any tears about Camp Letterman at Gettysburg. It was a hospital. There was no fighting there. I would rather lose that ground than ground where actual fighting took place, and you can’t stop all progress. Given that choice, I will always choose the hospital over the actual battlefield. So, I believe in picking and choosing battles and selecting only those fights that are worth alienating people over. Ultimately, some developers will actually work with preservationists and accomplish a satisfactory result.

If you need an example of what I’m referring to here, take a look at the partnership that was forged between the CWPT and a developer at Bristoe Station in Virginia. The deal means that Centex Homes, the developer, agreed to preserve the critical portion of the battlefield in return for the CWPT’s dropping its objections to the rest of the development. The developer is donating 127 of the 340 acres that it owns to the CWPT in order for that ground to be turned into a battlefield park. That, in my mind, is a win-win scenario that meets precisely my definition of a good settlement. Both sides gave up something to get something, and both sides ended up walking away with a compromise. In my mind, this is a real formula for successful future preservation efforts, and I hope that local preservation groups learn something from it.