Re: The Wilderness Alert !!!!
A judge on Friday kept alive the fight to block a Wal-Mart Supercenter near an endangered Civil War site where Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant first met on the field of battle.
Circuit Court Judge Daniel R. Bouton rejected a bid by Orange County, Va., to dismiss the challenge and instead ruled that residents who live near the Wilderness Battlefield and a historic group can contest the county's approval of the store at trial.
The decision resurrects a fierce national effort to protect a battlefield in Northern Virginia where 180,000 soldiers fought and 26,000 were killed or injured 146 years ago.
More than 250 historians, Civil War preservationists and celebrities such as actor Robert Duvall and filmmaker Ken Burns have taken a stand against the store and its possible impact on the battlefield. The Supercenter planned by Bentonville, Ark.-based Wal-Mart Storeswould be outside the limits of the protected national park but within an area where troops prepared for battle, marched and died of their injuries.
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
The challenge was brought by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, six residents who live within 3 miles or less of the Walmart site and a group that maintains an historic estate on the battlefield. They argued that the county Board of Supervisors ignored or rejected the assistance of historians and other preservation experts when it approved the special use permit for Walmart last August.
In his ruling, Bouton decided that the National Trust had no legal standing in the dispute but ruled for the residents and the local preservation group. The judge cited another national chain in ruling for the residents: Starbucks.
While the residents would have a tough case proving one of the ubiquitous coffee chain's stores several miles away would disrupt their lives, the judge said the construction of a 138,000-square-foot Walmart was another story. He said residents had legitimate fears about increased traffic and litter.
"Thus, the use of land by an establishment like Walmart could have an adverse and immediate impact on far more property owners than would a Starbucks," Bouton wrote.
The judge also concluded that the Friends of the Wilderness Battlefield had standing in the case and could move forward with a legal challenge. The group maintains an historic property at the battlefield, Ellwood Manor, a former plantation house that dates to the 1700s and served as a hospital for Confederate troops. It is located less than 1 mile from the store's site.
Bouton said the group would be "significantly affected" by the county's approval of the store.
In a statement, National Trust President Richard Moe said, "While the National Trust will not serve as a plaintiff in this lawsuit, we are very pleased that local Orange County residents and Friends of Wilderness Battlefield will be able to challenge this Wal-Mart project that threatens an historic place they care about."
Zann Nelson, president of the Friends of the Wilderness Battlefield, said members "eagerly await trial."
"We are grateful for the ruling of the court that allows us to speak on behalf of preservation and the Orange County community that care about this national treasure," Nelson said.
An attorney representing Orange County had not reviewed the ruling and had no immediate response. Walmart, which was not a party to this dispute, did not immediately respond to an Associated Press request for comment.
The ruling focused on the legal question of whether the residents and preservation groups could further pursue their challenge and did not debate the historic arguments against the store.
Preservationists and some local residents argue the retail center will bring more commerce, traffic and pollution to the gateway of what is considered one of the nation's most hallowed Civil War sites.
Walmart and its supporters have said the store would be in a commercial zone that's already crowded with small retail outlets, and it would provide tax revenues and jobs in this rural county of approximately 15,000.
-- Associated Press
-
Re: The Wilderness Alert !!!!
WALMART SUIT ROLLS ON
May 1, 2010 12:36 am
BY ROBIN KNEPPER AND CLINT SCHEMMER
BY ROBIN KNEPPER AND CLINT SCHEMMER
A lawsuit aimed at stopping construction of a Walmart superstore in the Wilderness battlefield area can proceed to trial, a judge ruled yesterday.
Orange County Attorney Sharon Pandak had asked the judge to dismiss the suit filed by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, six local residents and the Friends of the Wilderness Battlefield, claiming none of the plaintiffs had standing to sue and had failed to state a valid claim.
Circuit Judge Daniel R. Bouton, in a 10-page opinion released yesterday, agreed with only one of Pandak's arguments--that the National Trust did not have standing to challenge the county's approval of a special-use permit to build the retail center.
Bouton said the other plaintiffs could proceed with their case against county supervisors.
"We are grateful for the ruling that allows us to speak on behalf of preservation and the Orange County community that cares about this national treasure," said Zann Nelson, president of Friends of Wilderness Battlefield. "We eagerly await trial."
"It's a pre-trial ruling," Pandak said. "We tried to get the suit dismissed at an early stage to avoid trial and save the county time and cost. The largest plaintiff has been taken out and the others will have to prove their case."
The 138,000-square-foot Supercenter is planned as the anchor of a 240,000-square-foot retail center on 51.5 acres a quarter-mile north of the intersection of State Routes 3 and 20 and the Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park's Wilderness battlefield.
The ruling is the latest in a 16-month battle that has drawn national attention.
Opponents claim the store and the traffic it will bring will desecrate the Civil War battlefield. Supporters argue that the property is outside the congressionally mandated boundaries of the national park, has been zoned for commercial use for more than 30 years and would provide needed jobs and tax revenue for the county.
On Aug. 25, Orange supervisors approved a special-use permit required under the county's "big-box" ordinance to build the Supercenter.
The plaintiffs filed suit Sept. 23, alleging that the county failed to comply with its comprehensive plan, did not have a valid recommendation from its Planning Commission and "brushed aside" mounting concerns about the negative impacts the store would have on the battlefield and national park.
"We're confident that we can prove every allegation in the complaint," Robert Rosenbaum, the plaintiffs' lead attorney, said in an interview yesterday afternoon. "It would then be up to the board to explain how, under these circumstances, anyone reasonably could have approved this project."
The residents who brought the suit--five from Lake of the Woods and one from Spotsylvania County--all live three miles or less from the store site. They claim they will be affected by noise, traffic and pollution from the Walmart store.
The LOW residents also claim they will be required to pay for upgrades to the dam on the community's small lake as a result of the Walmart construction. One of the LOW plaintiffs owns a florist shop on Route 3 and maintains she will be adversely affected by a high-volume, low-price competitor.
Bouton's favorable ruling for the residents' standing cited a Virginia Supreme Court decision that noted plaintiffs who lived in close proximity to a property that is subject to rezoning possess a "justifiable interest."
Bouton stated in his opinion that the "duties and obligations" of Friends of the Wilderness Battlefield are "sufficient to justify standing." FoWB is a nonprofit group that works with the National Park Service to promote and maintain the historic site where Union Gen. Ulysses S. Grant and Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee first clashed.
"It gives us courage," the Friends' Nelson said of the judge's ruling. "It gives us inspiration and validation to go forward, so we can try to find that win-win solution on the Wilderness Walmart issue that we believe is out there."
Robin Knepper: 540/972-5701
Email: rknepper@earthlink.net
Online at: http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2...5012010/545102Leave a comment:
-
Re: The Wilderness Alert !!!!
After listening to more than three hours of legal wrangling Wednesday, a judge will decide whether to throw out a lawsuit opposing a planned Walmart within a cannon's shot of an endangered Civil War battlefield in Virginia.
Orange County wants Circuit Court Judge Daniel R. Bouton to dismiss a challenge of an Aug. 25 decision to approve the 138,000-square-foot Supercenter within one mile of the Wilderness Battlefield.
Bouton did not indicate when he would rule.
Preservationists and some local residents contend the retail center will bring more commerce, traffic and pollution to the gateway of what is considered one of the nation's most hallowed Civil War sites.
Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee and his union counterpart, Ulysses S. Grant, first met in battle at the Wilderness, where 180,000 soldiers fought and 26,000 were killed or injured 146 years ago.
More than 250 historians, celebrities such as actor Robert Duvall and Civil War preservationists have spoken out against the store and its possible impact on the battlefield. The store would be outside the limits of the protected national park but within an area where troops prepared for battle, marched, and died of their injuries.
Walmart and its supporters have said the store would be in a commercial zone that's already crowded with small retail outlets, and it would provide tax revenues and jobs in this rural county of approximately 15,000.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation, along with six residents who live within three miles or less of the Walmart site and a group that maintains a historic estate on the battlefield, argue that the county Board of Supervisors ignored or rejected the assistance of historians and other preservation experts and brushed aside their concerns when it approved the special use permit for Walmart.
Wednesday's hearing focused primarily on the county's argument the case has no merit and should be dismissed.
An attorney for the county, Sharon Pandak, questioned whether any of the plaintiffs have legal standing to bring the lawsuit, which would require them to prove they would be harmed by the county's decision. She noted, for instance, that many live in subdivisions built upon areas of the Wilderness Battlefield.
Pandak argued that it's not enough for the plaintiffs to claim they would be harmed because they would be able to see the Walmart once it is built.
The plaintiffs' lawyer said Pandak was trying to set an unrealistic bar for their claim.
"She argues for a standing that no one could ever meet," argued Robert D. Rosenbaum, representing the trust and the residents.
The arguments also went into whether a Planning Commission vote was valid, the statutory obligations of supervisors, and estimates of how many vehicles the store would draw daily.
Rosenbaum wants the judge to declare the supervisors' vote "unlawful and invalid" and to block any further county action on Walmart's site plan. Construction has not begun at the site about 50 miles southwest of Washington, D.C.
Leave a comment:
-
Re: The Wilderness Alert !!!!
February 3, 2010
ORANGE, Va. - The Virginia county that approved a Walmart Supercenter near an endangered Civil War battlefield is asking a judge to reject a legal challenge of the planned store.
A hearing is scheduled Wednesday in Orange Circuit Court on the request of the Orange County Board of Supervisors.
Preservationists oppose Walmart's plans to build less than one-half mile from the Locust Grove battlefield in northern Virginia where 26,000 Union and Confederate soldiers were injured or killed 145 years ago.
They are challenging the county's Aug. 25 vote to approve the 138,000-square-foot store.
First, however, a judge will decide whether the challenge can move forward.
Leave a comment:
-
Re: The Wilderness Alert !!!!
BY ROBIN KNEPPER
The Orange County Board of Supervisors is asking a court to dismiss a lawsuit seeking to overturn its approval of a Walmart Supercenter in the Wilderness battlefield area.
Calling the complaint filed by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Friends of the Wilderness Battlefield and six individual plaintiffs a "rambling set of allegations designed to try to avoid dismissal prior to trial," the response filed yesterday maintains that the plaintiffs have no standing or cause to sue.
On Aug. 25, the Orange Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 to grant a special-use permit for a 240,000-square-foot retail development on a 51.5-acre parcel northwest of the intersection of State Routes 3 and 20 and a quarter-mile from the entrance to Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park. Walmart plans to build a 138,000-square-foot Supercenter as the anchor store.
On Sept. 25, opponents filed a legal challenge contending the board's decision was "flawed in numerous respects." It claims that supervisors "brushed aside" mounting concerns about the negative impacts the store would have on the battlefield and park.
In its response, the county says the "complaint displays a lack of understanding of Virginia land-use law."
"Digested to its essentials, the complaint does not state a cause of action. Rather, plaintiffs simply have a fundamental policy disagreement with the board," the response states.
The response also notes that neither the federal nor state government has prohibited development on the property, which has been privately owned and zoned for commercial development since 1973.
"Plaintiffs want to prevent use of land that they do not own and this suit is a contrived effort to enable them to do so," the response states.
None of the plaintiffs have standing to challenge the special-use permit because none are "aggrieved persons" under the Orange County zoning ordinance, according to the response.
"It is not legally sufficient to establish standing to sue that the National Trust and the Friends are attempting to advance some perceived public right or to redress some anticipated public injury," it states.
Robert D. Rosenbaum, attorney for the National Trust and other plaintiffs, disputed the main points of the county's legal response.
continued
"The complaint made a very strong showing of standing to bring this dispute to the court. The county's motion does not rebut that case in any way," Rosenbaum, senior counsel with Arnold & Porter in Washington, said in an interview.
"The county's motion fails to recognize the seriousness of the substantive allegations in the complaint, and we look forward to litigating the motion before the court."
No hearing date on the lawsuit has been set.
The board's approval of the retail project came after months of controversy and three public hearings before the Planning Commission and supervisors.
Opponents say the retail development and the traffic it would bring would denigrate the Civil War battlefield where armies led by Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant first clashed 145 years ago. They have urged Walmart to find another site in Orange farther from the battlefield.
Walmart supporters say the store will bring needed jobs and tax revenue to the rural county. They note that the site is outside the congressionally mandated boundary of the national park, and that convenience stores, a fast-food restaurant and other commercial enterprises already exist in the area.
Walmart officials have said the site is the only one in the area that meets their criteria for zoning, size and road access. Work has not yet begun on the store.
--Staff writer Clint Schemmer contributed to this report.
Leave a comment:
-
Re: The Wilderness Alert !!!!
Orange vows to fight lawsuit against Walmart
Attorney says Orange County will ask court to dismiss lawsuit against Walmart permit
BY ROBIN KNEPPER
The Free Lance-Star [Fredericksburg, Va.]
September 25, 2009
The Orange County Board of Supervisors will ask a judge to dismiss a lawsuit challenging its approval of a Walmart Supercenter in the Wilderness Battlefield area, the county's attorney said yesterday.
The lawsuit--filed Wednesday in Orange County Circuit Court by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Friends of the Wilderness Battlefield and six local residents--claims the supervisors' approval of a special-use permit for the 138,000-square foot store and surrounding retail center was "flawed in numerous respects."
County Attorney Sharon Pandak released a statement yesterday afternoon saying the board "will vigorously defend its land-use decision-making."
"Plaintiffs want to prevent use of land which they do not own," she wrote.
The Supercenter would anchor a 240,000-square-foot retail center on a 51.5-acre parcel northwest of the intersection of State Routes 3 and 20 and a quarter-mile from the entrance to Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park.
The lawsuit claims supervisors "brushed aside" mounting concerns about the negative impacts the store would have on the park and Civil War battlefield where Gens. Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee first clashed 145 years ago.
It asks the court to invalidate the special-use permit and to prevent the county from approving any similar projects until it adds protection of historic resources into its zoning ordinance.
"The Board respects the Plaintiffs' difference of opinion on this policy matter," Pandak wrote. "However, the land subject to the permit issued to Walmart has not been shown to be land on which a battle was fought. Nor have the federal or state governments prohibited development on this private property."
Among the suit's claims:
The board failed to comply with the county's comprehensive plan, which calls for preservation and protection of historic resources.
The county's zoning ordinance is invalid because it fails to comply with state laws that require such ordinances to provide protections for historic sites.
There were procedural defects in the Planning Commission's three separate votes on the landowners' permit request. As a result, the commission did not make a valid recommendation, as required by law.
In her statement, Pandak wrote, "The Board of Supervisors met procedural requirements and gave substantial opportunities for public input and received opinions for and against the proposed development. The Board complied with legal requirements in approving the special-use permit request."
County supervisors contacted yesterday declined to comment directly on the lawsuit, saying Pandak's statement would stand as the county's response for now. But Supervisor Teel Goodwin said he was not surprised by the legal action.
"I told people that we weren't finished with Walmart yet, that there would be a lawsuit," he said.
Opponents have said they do not oppose a Walmart in Orange County, just the site chosen.
"We regret that it's come to this," Russ Smith, superintendent of Fredericksburg & Spotsylvania National Military Park, said of the lawsuit. "I hope a reasonable solution can still be worked out, that Walmart will move down the road to a location farther from the battlefield. That's what we've been asking all along."
Eric
ELeave a comment:
-
Re: The Wilderness Alert !!!!
FOES OF WALMART SUE
Preservation groups file suit to block Walmart Supercenter in Wilderness battlefield area
BY CLINT SCHEMMER
The Free Lance-Star [Fredericksburg, Va.]
September 24, 2009
Opponents of the Walmart Supercenter planned in the Wilderness battlefield area filed a legal challenge yesterday to block the project.
The lawsuit by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Friends of Wilderness Battlefield and residents of Orange and Spotsylvania counties contests the Orange supervisors' Aug. 25 decision to grant a special-use permit for a 240,000-square-foot retail development.
The 138,000-square-foot Walmart would anchor the retail center on a 51.5-acre parcel northwest of the intersection of State Routes 3 and 20 and a quarter-mile from the entrance to Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park.
The legal challenge contends the Board of Supervisors' 4-1 decision was "flawed in numerous respects." It claims that supervisors "brushed aside" mounting concerns about the negative impacts the store would have on the battlefield and park.
Calling the Walmart project "oversized and inappropriate," National Trust President Richard Moe said his 250,000-member group joined the lawsuit "to protect the Wilderness battlefield, the national park and the citizens of Orange County.
"It's our obligation to challenge big-box development on this vulnerable site, which would compound earlier land-use planning missteps and eventually would radically urbanize the rural gateway to the national park," Moe said.
Orange Board of Supervisors Chairman Lee Frame and Supervisor Mark Johnson said yesterday afternoon they were not aware of the lawsuit and could not comment. Other supervisors could not be reached for comment.
Walmart spokesman Keith Morris said the Bentonville, Ark.-based retailer "not only met but exceeded the guidelines set by the county.
"This was not a decision reached without lengthy consideration and public input," Morris said. "The only other thing I can say now is that there's a world of difference between an appeal and an appeal without merit. Our contention would be that this falls into the former category."
The Friends of Wilderness Battlefield and the National Trust are among eight local, state and national groups that formed the Wilderness Battlefield Coalition to try to halt the big-box development, which was announced in August 2008.
Zann Nelson, president of the local Friends of Wilderness Battlefield, said the tenets of the group's charter compelled it to challenge Orange officials' actions.
"It has consistently been FoWB's position that the location of the Walmart on the Wilderness battlefield denigrates its hallowed ground, historic significance and the experience for the visitor," she said in an interview. "We cannot in good conscience accept the findings of Orange's incredibly flawed land-use process."
Six private citizens are also plaintiffs: Curtis Abel, Sheila Clark, Dwight L. Mottet and Craig Rains, all residents of Lake of the Woods in Orange County; Susan Caton, owner of Susan's Flowers Etc. off Route 3 in Locust Grove; and Dale Brown, who lives in Spotsylvania County within sight of the tract where Walmart, JDC Ventures of Vienna and 3 & 20 Limited Partnership of Burke plan the development.
Rains, an Arkansas native, said he moved to central Virginia because of its historic resources, including the Wilderness battlefield where armies led by Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant first clashed 145 years ago.
"I think there are tremendous opportunities here for a restored showcase where visitors will have a unique experience right on the field of battle," Rains said in an interview. "Significant commercial development across the road from the gateway to the Wilderness battlefield would greatly reduce that likelihood and its historic education opportunities."
The 41-page lawsuit starts by quoting Pulitzer Prize-winning historian James McPherson, who wrote: "The Battle of the Wilderness was a great turning point in the Civil War--the first clash between Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant and the beginning of the end for the beleaguered Confederacy."
The plaintiffs ask the court to declare the supervisors' vote "unlawful and invalid" and block county action on Walmart's site plan.
Among the suit's claims:
The board failed to comply with the county's comprehensive plan, which calls for preservation and protection of historic resources.
The county's zoning ordinance is invalid because it fails to comply with state laws that require such ordinances to provide protections for historic sites.
There were procedural defects in the Planning Commission's three separate votes on the landowners' permit request. As a result, the commission did not make a valid recommendation, as required by law.
Walmart supporters said the store will bring needed jobs and tax revenue to the rural county. They note that the site is outside the congressionally mandated boundary of the battlefield, and that convenience stores, a fast-food restaurant and other commercial enterprises already exist in the area.
Rob Nieweg, director of the National Trust's Southern Field Office, said the county accepted environmental and fiscal impact studies from Walmart that did not assess the harm a Supercenter would do to local merchants and the national park.
Nieweg noted that critics have said from the beginning that they aren't opposed to a Walmart in Orange County, "just one that falls within the battlefield or in such close proximity to the national park."
James Lighthizer, president of the 55,000-member Civil War Preservation Trust, expressed support for the lawsuit and said his group still hopes Walmart "will opt to select a different site elsewhere in the county."
Walmart officials have said the site is the only one in the area that meets their criteria for zoning, size and road access. Work has not yet begun on the store.
Arnold & Porter, a powerhouse Washington law firm, is representing the plaintiffs. It took the case on a pro bono basis, volunteering its services.
"Local residents have a right to expect thoughtful and respectful representation from their elected representatives, and the nation as a whole deserves more careful consideration of this historic place where 30,000 Americans suffered casualties," said Robert Rosenbaum, attorney for the plaintiffs.
Orange supervisors have 21 days to file their response to the lawsuit.
EricLeave a comment:
-
Re: The Wilderness Alert !!!!
Here is what it will look like.
Leave a comment:
-
Re: The Wilderness Alert !!!!
Eric, Without a doubt WalMart will stumble or totally collapse one day. When it happens I will rejoice either way. That happiness will be overshadowed however with the relization that many of their vacant sites will have already destroyed pristine farmland and if by chance it's the latest Orange County site. It will have already desecrated sacred ground.Leave a comment:
-
Re: The Wilderness Alert !!!!
Entreating Walmart
Is the second battle of the Wilderness over?
Editorial
The Free Lance-Star [Fredericksburg, Va.]
August 31, 2009
THERE LAST WEEK stood four of five Orange County supervisors like a stone wall--of ornery provincialism against the forces of decent compromise. Spurning alternatives, the four permitted Walmart to build a Supercenter on the Wilderness battlefield and a quarter-mile from the national park that preserves a part of it. Opponents' reaction to the vote has consisted of some unsanctioned muttering about tying up the project with lawsuits and--the organizational response--the loudly bugled hope that patriotic appeals to Walmart executives will move them to move the store.
Meritless litigation would be unseemly and, ultimately, useless. It would disdain public proceedings that, however odious their outcome, have evidently been on the square, and it would impede the right of an American citizen to legally dispose of his property. After Appomattox, Robert E. Lee quashed Confederate talk of continuing the conflict via guerrilla war. Last week's losers should also forswear tactics that merely harass. Moreover, Walmart's pockets are a bit deeper than those of any Parthian shooters.
As to moral suasion targeted at Bentonville, it is worth a try, though the record is unpromising. Once Walmart fixes on a site, the retail behemoth rarely backtracks. The detouring in the 1990s of Walmart from Ferry Farm, George Washington's boyhood home, is a happy exception that proves the rule. But it was the rule that applied at places like history-drenched Chestertown, Md., founded in 1706, which had to wage a harrowing 10-year battle to keep out Walmart, and Charlotte Pike, Tenn., site of both a Civil War battle and an Indian burial ground, where Walmart built a store over historians' and American Indians' protests. The common theme in these set-tos was expressed in the statement of a Walmart rep to Chestertown's mayor: "We don't lose."
Walmart nabobs may relent when they glean the historical importance of the Wilderness--the beginning of the end for Lee's army--and the friends of history should try to take that message to the highest corporate suites. Yet for months the nation's leading Civil War historians have railed against a Wilderness Walmart. Celebrities Robert Duvall and Ben Stein have joined them. The Washington Post, the L.A. Times, and ABC News have reported the controversy. If Walmart's executives are ignorant about the Wilderness, they rate a ticker-tape parade down Broadway as the first Earthlings to have just returned from the planet Pluto.
What about the specter of bad PR? It is a small haunt. Walmart is a $401 billion company--the globe's largest. Its worth, according to the CIA World Factbook, exceeds the GDPs of all but 26 nations. Every week, its roughly 4,000 U.S. stores record 100 million customer entries--representing almost a third of the population. Expecting any significant number of shoppers to resist the siren song of "Save Money, Live Better" because of battlefield insensitivity in Where's That, Virginia is to dream.
Orange re-teaches a plain lesson: If citizens wish to save hallowed ground from development, they must buy it before the Walmarts arrive, or tighten local zoning. If the latter, they also must elect officials who will stand by that zoning: The Orange quartet pushed aside a 60,000-square-foot building limit to give Walmart 138,000 square feet for its Supercenter.
Meanwhile, opponents of what Sam Walton's creation represents--an insatiable hunger for world retail conquest--can take heart that the juggernaut at times stumbles. While Walmart has opened stores in 14 foreign countries, it didn't "take" in Germany and South Korea, nations from which it withdrew. At home, it suffers a steady pounding of criticism about the treatment of its work force (70 percent quit within a year of employment; barely half have health insurance); its alleged bullying of domestic suppliers, which may be forced to cut costs so low that they either go broke or move operations to low-wage China; and its decimation of local businesses when it hits town.
Juggernauts topple--A&P once held 80 percent of the U.S. supermarket trade--and the poem "Ozymandias" is still relevant business analysis concerning the transitoriness of the high and mighty. Can the business world's reigning "king of kings" be persuaded to act royally in Orange to save the sanctum of what is truly eternal?
EricLeave a comment:
-
Re: The Wilderness Alert !!!!
In this fight, no one is holding their breath or stamping their feet. Folks aren't against WalMart, they are against the location. Folks have stated they would help with rezoning the land further down the road IN Orange County.
Preservationists don't have the same money as big business. They have to apply leverage in other ways. Without trying to appeal to business sensibilities, the first day's battlefield at Chancellorsville would have been lost.
I just don't see what your posts are doing to add to the discussion. If you don't like the tactics being implemented here, ignore them.
This fight is not over and hopefully a compromise can be reached. As to your argument that Rte 20 won't have to be widened because of most of the traffic is coming along Rte 3, this location is in far eastern Orange County and most Orange County residents would have to use Rte 20 to get to the new store in their county.
Again, it is not development that folks are concerned with, it is the size and scope of the development that concerns most.Leave a comment:
-
Re: The Wilderness Alert !!!!
Okay now that I have vented let my compliment people on efforts that I get behind. Franklin is a great example of the type of preservation I feel works better. Raising the money and buying the land. It works even better if we do it before it is developed. In addition I support efforts to increase the NPS budget to purchase more land provide it isn't done through emminant domain.(sorry that is the libertarian speaking). This is my idea of a better solution. Another example I point to is my home town of Wakefield NH. we have a designated "historic area" which was the original section of the town. Some of the buildings dating to the 1790's. Now the town passed zoning rules that limited the ability to build and construct in the zone. However it didn't leave the land owners hanging. It worked with them and gave them benefits for keeping the structures and land in a historical state. I want us to work with not against the land owners and developers.Originally posted by dusty27 View PostLeave a comment:
-
Re: The Wilderness Alert !!!!
Originally posted by dusty27 View Post
I live in Maryland DC area and am born and raised in New Hampshire both historical significant areas. I have for years donated to the CWPT and various other causes including the one from this forum. In addition I had written and e-mailed and phoned my congresswoman and Senators. Sorry I have a job that makes it a little difficult to drive the two hours to get down to the meetings. But again since I am not a resident I would not go if I could have since it is for the people there to decide since it is not a part of the NPS land.
I am all for historical preservation but not of the variety that appears to be al the rage now which is stamp our feet and hold our breath and hope things are not built. Instead of engaging landowners we snear at them. I know how land developement works. I also know that business is more willing to work with us if they see financial motivation in it. Also I see the people of the surrounding community wanted the thing built based on the news articles. Had we convinced them by giving them an alternative to ways they can raise the tax revenues they desired. We can have history on our side all we want but until we put dollar signs on our side these fights will get harder and harder. I am sorry I am not in the approved preservationist crowd. Didn't know we had to apply and go to a board.Leave a comment:
-
Re: The Wilderness Alert !!!!
Brian,
Where are you located? Why do you keep saying "we" let this happen? What "battles" are "we" loosing? All I've ever seen you do is come on this forum and bash the efforts of folks who have history and clout on their side.
Until you get directly involved and help in a discernable way, please stop bashing the folks who are trying to help. You don't seem to know how these things work, for the most part...............Leave a comment:
-
Re: The Wilderness Alert !!!!
Originally posted by Pvt Schnapps View Post
I have to respectfully disagree Mike. We will end up looking like the guy who will die on his mountain.
This fight was lost cause we in the preservation community lost it. The site in question is not on the battlefield but nearby. However the first arguement was oh it was a part of the battlefield. Then when that was debunked it changed to oh they will expand 20 which is silly since most of the traffic will come to the store via 3. How do we expect people to buy into the arguement if we keep changing our story. Heck we couldn't even explain why the exsisting developement which is between the proposed site and battlefield is okay but not the Wal-Mart. It just looks like we are making excuses not to build on our playground. Even if it wasn't zoned commercial what is the difference between a Wal-Mart(whom I love their business model) and 500 units of housing? Maybe a Golf Course Or a Giant and a couple of fast food joints. What about a new High School complete with a nice new football stadium? All I have seen on these boards is Wal-Mart bashing. Folks can hate Wal-Mart all they want but using historical preservation as an excuse is wrong. Even if that is not the intention that is how it is viewed. We allowed the land to be zoned commercial. Once that is done the fight is lost No one cared when the land was purchased and taxes were paid as long as they did what we said? We are acting like a bunch of Carpet Baggers coming in from outside the community(IE Vermont's Legislature) telling the locals what to do while we go back and do what we wish with our lands. Kinda ironic since many Confederate reenactors are some of the loudest in making demands. If it was such a concern why was the land not purchased years ago? All the out of area politicians could have gotten the money together to do it. But instead they pass a few resolutions puff their chests out look important without offering anything in the way of a solution. I would rather the Wal-Mart not be built. However the developers bought the land in good faith they were going to be able to develope it. What did we in the preservation community do but stamp our feet and so no no no move it. Answer a big zero. Did we lobby the state to give a tax exemption to the land owners? Did we give Wal-Mart fininancial motivation to move including paying for new site surveys and enviromental impact studies required? Answer to both nope we just threw a temper tantrum and became adversarial immeadiately. And that is the reason we are losing more and more of these fights. The good that will come of this I hope is the preservation community will change it's tactics and fight these battles with dollar signs and not rhetoric. I am sorry to be in the minority but at what point do we start working with developers vice just yelling.Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: