Fighting Back
Galvanized by a proposed Walmart supercenter, historians, residents, and Civil War buffs are struggling to protect a threatened battlefield in northeastern Virginia
By Christopher Shea | From Preservation | May/June 2010
Russ Smith, a low-key, 60-year-old superintendent with the National Park Service, noses his official white Chevy Impala off four-lane Route 3 in Orange County, Virginia, and onto a dirt road called Lyons Lane. We drive past the brick remains of an outbuilding and down around a curve, where he pulls to the side. In a few seconds, we're standing at a literal turning point of the American Civil War.
On May 5 and 6, 1864, Union troops marched south along the old Orange Turnpike here and clashed with Robert E. Lee's Confederate Army of Northern Virginia in the Battle of the Wilderness, a brutal encounter that involved more than 170,000 men and left nearly 30,000 of them dead, dying, or wounded.
The battle (its name refers to the dense undergrowth common to this region) is still recalled for a specific horror: Acres of nearly impenetrable scrub caught fire, incinerating hundreds of wounded soldiers caught in the no-man's land between opposing forces. But what truly distinguished the battle was its aftermath.
Ulysses S. Grant, freshly imported from the western theater, could have withdrawn the Army of the Potomac—standard Union practice up until that point in the War between the States. But instead, Grant ordered his troops south. "The men began to sing," one Union veteran recalled. Their ordeal would not be in vain. From then on, Grant's forces would relentlessly pursue Lee's army in a merciless war of attrition. The endgame of the Civil War had begun.
On a hill to the west of where we stand, I can see Ellwood Manor, a two-story house that served as temporary headquarters for Union General Gouverneur K. Warren and is now administered by the National Park Service. Officials hope that this elegant plantation house, newly outfitted with electronic battlefield displays, will serve as an enticing and memorable entry point for visitors to the Wilderness, which remains overlooked by tourists flocking to the more famous Chancellorsville and Fredericksburg battlefields farther east.
But there's a catch: Walmart.
In August 2009, the Arkansas-based corporation received approval to construct a massive supercenter at the intersection of Route 3 and Route 20. The Friends of Wilderness Battlefield, six local residents, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation are fighting that decision in court. Routes 3 and 20 are not exactly pristine: A red Sheetz gas station squats on the southwest corner next to a McDonald's, and modest strip malls stand on both sides of Route 3. But those are mere blemishes, say the plaintiffs, whereas Walmart would be an out-and-out preservation catastrophe.
"If you want to interpret that moment in history, the best place is standing on the intersection where it happened," says Rob Nieweg, director of the National Trust's Southern Field Office, who accompanied me on my road trip to the Wilderness. "It's an extraordinary place. If Walmart and its partners build a 240,000-square-foot development, and the adjacent land is converted to big-box retail, and that intersection starts looking like other areas of Route 3, it will be impossible to interpret that moment in American history."
It's a frightening prospect that prompts important questions. What happens when a treasured historic site is surrounded by rampant development? How can the nation honor its history if sprawl consumes all but a few circumscribed acres of public land? Simply put, when is one more supercenter one too many?
Orange County, 40 miles wide and home to 33,000 residents, has not experienced the sprawl—or shopping opportunities—of neighboring Spotsylvania County, population 120,000. Yet Walmart executives, whose understanding of strategic locations rivals that of Civil War generals, identified a retail opportunity at the intersection of two rural roads. And county supervisors helped them seize it.
Local officials started talking with Walmart in 2007. And their conversations prompted strong opposition—from professional preservationists and others. Over time, those who objected to this Walmart (and pressed for the company to build just a few miles away from the Wilderness) grew to include Virginia senators Mark Warner (D) and Jim Webb (D), then-Gov. Tim Kaine (D), the speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates, William J. Howell (R), and 250 historians. "There are many places in central Virginia to build a commercial development, but there is only one Wilderness Battlefield," the historians wrote in a December 2008 letter to Walmart's then-CEO Lee Scott.
In June 2009, the American Battlefield Protection Program, part of the Park Service, awarded a $40,000 grant for a preservation plan for the intersection, which opponents of construction agreed to match. Gov. Kaine even offered state resources to find a new location. The Virginia Department of Historic Resources also weighed in, arguing that an Orange County Planning Department staff report, prepared for the Board of Supervisors, failed to convey the importance of preserving the historic land.
Yet the Board of Supervisors was unmoved and voted 4-1 to approve Walmart's plans.
The resulting legal complaint, filed last September, charges that the board acted so "unreasonably" that it "abdicated its responsibility." (The suit was filed against the Board of Supervisors; Walmart is not named as a defendant.)
The plaintiffs say that supervisors failed to follow state law and the county's own goals for the protection of historically important land. Their complaint also alleges numerous irregularities in the approval process—charging, for example, that a crucial planning commission vote, on August 21, was invalid, in part because insufficient notice was given for the meeting.
Orange County, for its part, argues that the National Trust and the other plaintiffs are simply on the losing side of a political argument; that the board listened to preservationists even if it did not agree with their arguments; and that Virginia law gives local officials great leeway in land-use decisions. More technically, it argues that none of the plaintiffs will suffer direct harm from the Walmart development, a prerequisite for any lawsuit.
The two sides clashed for the first time on a snowy morning in February in the chambers of Orange County Circuit Court Judge Daniel Bouton. "This has been a highly contentious issue," said the county's attorney, Sharon Pandak. But the complaint only lays out "an alternative point of view" from the one that supervisors endorsed. And if that's true, she said, "the county's decision should stand" and the lawsuit should be dismissed.
She faced off against Robert Rosenbaum, with the D.C. firm Arnold & Porter (which has taken the case pro bono), who argued that "no reasonable board" would ignore the advice of such an impressive array of historians, officials, and public and private experts. On the question of legal "standing," Rosenbaum contended that the National Trust's congressional mandate included the right to sue when historic treasures were threatened, and that the mandate afforded standing over and above the narrow stardards of state law in this case.
The courtroom skirmish was heavy on legal preliminaries, but the battle over a Wilderness Walmart spotlights a fundamental concern: How should land adjacent to crucial historic sites be treated? No one thinks the proposed construction area should become a national park—there is no federal money to buy it, in any case—but surely middle ground exists between that and a supermall? "We have to get out of the zookeeper mentality," says the Park Service's Smith, "where we cage certain areas and forget about whatever happens outside that cage."
Then there is the ever-vexing issue of managing sprawl, which has engulfed the area around Fredericksburg, Spotsylvania's neighbor to the east. In 1927, when the federal government began acquiring the land that became the Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park (which contains four battlefields, including the Wilderness), there was every reason to think that the region would remain forever rural. Consequently, the Park Service owns only a fraction of the battlefield land—just 14 percent according to Smith's estimate. The rest is largely unprotected. But rising house prices around Washington have driven commuters ever further south into Virginia, a trend abetted by the arrival of Virginia Railway Express stations in 1992. As a result, the once-rural landscape east of the Blue Ridge Mountains has changed beyond all imagining.
Driving south from Washington on I-95, the first indication of Fredericksburg sprawl is the towering sign for Central Park, which turns out to be a mega shopping center on Route 3. It has a Best Buy and a Target, plus a Sports Authority, an Old Navy, a Walmart, and more. Continue west on 3 and the thesaurus of sprawl continues—Taco Bell, The Home Depot, DVDs on the Run. In the very heart of this development, hiding behind a scrim of trees as if embarrassed, is the historic Salem Church, a handsome brick structure that was the site of a crucial clash during the 1863 Battle of Chancellorsville. The Park Service maintains it, and the building is in fine shape, but to say the site has been preserved would be an overstatement, given the din surrounding it on all sides. (When I asked one of the plaintiffs, Dale Brown, for directions to the church, he smiled ruefully and said: "Just past the Chick-fil-A.") Keep driving on 3 and development peters out into farmland and scattered housing about a dozen miles to the west of I-95. The new Walmart would rise a few miles past that: a fresh encampment of sprawl.
Civil War battlefields are particularly vulnerable to sprawl because major clashes often took place near cities or on crossroads that evolved into modern intersections. A wake-up call came in 1988, when the government had to pay a developer $118 million to prevent construction on part of the original Manassas battlefield (including the site of Lee's headquarters), an expensive federal "taking." In search of less-extreme solutions, Congress created the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission to look into the issue of battlefield protection. The commission, whose report came out in 1993, identified 384 battlefields and ranked them according to importance and intactness; the Wilderness ranked "A-1." It also sketched the geographic contours of each site, stressing that in almost every case, important land lay outside the boundaries of existing parks and memorials. The report concluded that local stewardship and public-private alliances would be crucial in protecting Civil War sites.
One of the private groups that has been most successful in that regard is the Civil War Preservation Trust, whose work is evident along Route 3.
In 2003, Spotsylvania County was considering approving the construction of 2,000 houses and commercial buildings on land that saw maneuvers during the first day of Chancellorsville. After protests that included a candlelight vigil, the county board voted against the plan. The Civil War Preservation Trust then brokered an agreement through which it purchased 140 acres of land to be set aside in perpetuity,
and agreed to the construction of 300 homes set back from
Route 3 beyond a swell of land. In a subsequent coup, the organization purchased 208 key Fredericksburg acres, known as Slaughter Pen Farm, for $12 million.
Despite those successes and the efforts of the advisory commission, many local officials still resist the notion that land outside a park can be historic. In the run-up to their vote, Orange County supervisors insisted that the site proposed for the Route 3 Walmart was not just outside the battlefield—-it could not even be seen from it. (They may have been thinking that the building site is not visible from an exhibit area marking Grant's headquarters, which stands one-half mile down Route 20.)
Zack Burkett, an Orange County supervisor, and Pandak, the county attorney, both said that no member of the board would comment on the Walmart issue. But R. Mark Johnson, a former supervisor who voted for the Walmart and lost his bid for reelection last November, did speak with me. He insisted that board members considered concerns about preservation as well as the county's need for retail and economic growth. "It wasn't, as the opponents made it sound, done willy-nilly," he said. "When Walmart said it wanted to locate there, it was the unfolding of a plan … to locate growth in the town of Orange, in the town of Gordonsville, and the Route 3 corridor" where Walmart hopes to build.
He said the board was taken aback by the extent of the opposition: "We have been dealing with the National Park Service regarding the Route 20 corridor … They never said, 'Oh, by the way, we've noticed that this property'—the Walmart plot—'is zoned commercial and we don't want it developed.' " He insisted the Park Service did not express any concerns when McDonald's and Sheetz went in, in 1994 and 2000. (Smith disputes this, as does Craig Rains, a plaintiff and a member of the Friends of Wilderness Battlefield. Concerns were raised, Smith says, but "no one was listening.")
Keith Morris, Walmart's director of community affairs, did not seem eager to talk—-it took weeks of phone messages to reach him—-but when we finally spoke he argued that the proposed supercenter had elicited widespread popular support in the county. At the public meetings he attended, Morris estimates that sentiment was two-to-one or better in favor of construction. "When we are building a store we have to make sure we are meeting the needs of the community," Morris said. "We value that much more than we do the person who writes from Florida and says, 'I'm concerned about your building on the site'—although we take that into consideration, too."
Another supervisor voted out last fall, Teri Pace, cast the lone vote against the Walmart. She thinks that some of her constituents were mistakenly led to believe that vetoing this location meant vetoing a Walmart altogether, when that need not have been the case. She wishes her colleagues had embraced the idea that the Route 3-Route 20 intersection and Wilderness Battlefield could serve as a tone-setting "gateway" into the county. She wanted to see the Walmart pushed a few miles west, closer to a 1960s-era community of houses called Lake of the Woods, with the debated site and surrounding area given over to a resort and stores selling local delicacies. "Instead of hurting tourism, and hurting our entrance, we could have had a place that developed tourism," she says.
At the court hearing, Pandak, the county attorney, made the point, bitterly "ironic" in her view, that five of the six individual plaintiffs claiming to be concerned about the battlefield live in Lake of the Woods, which falls within a battlefield study area. One of those plaintiffs is Craig Rains. When I visited him in his Cape Cod-style home, Rains readily conceded that traces of Confederate and Union trenches can be found throughout his community.
But past development decisions, right or wrong, should not be used to license future recklessness, he said. After all, attitudes toward the past can evolve. Consider Ellwood Manor, which the Park Service acquired in 1977, repaired, and then mothballed for two decades. When the Friends of Wilderness Battlefield—"just a bunch of old retired people out here in the woods," Rains says—began to raise money for further restoration, there were gaping holes in interior walls. Now Ellwood is a showcase for the Park Service, which stepped in financially after the battlefield group raised more than $300,000.
Like many people around here, Rains has a personal connection to the local battlefields. One of his ancestors, a medical orderly, may have assisted in the amputation of Stonewall Jackson's arm after Chancellorsville. (The arm, and the arm alone, is buried at Ellwood and marked with a granite monument, one reason people make pilgrimages there.) Given just a little prompting, Rains can expound upon the idea that the Wilderness was more important than Chancellorsville and marvel anew at the moment when Union troops cheered the turn south. "It is spine tingling," he says, "and I just think that more people need to know about it."
Will people learn about it while standing on a battlefield in the shadow of a mammoth Walmart? That question remains in the hands of the court. And in the hands of Walmart officials, who could still change their minds about where to build. "There's a lot of difference," Rains says, "between standing at Ellwood Manor looking out over the land, seeing it just as it was when it was a Union headquarters, and standing at Old Salem Church and hearing cars whizzing by."
He thinks it's a difference worth fighting for.
Christopher Shea, a frequent contributor to Preservation, writes the Brainiac blog and column for The Boston Globe Ideas section.
For more photos, stories, and tips, subscribe to the print edition of Preservation magazine.
Comments
Submitted by Anonymous at: March 22, 2011
Having lived in Virginia for about a year, I had a chance to visit a lot of these historical battle grounds. The Civil War is a dark, yet important part of our Country's history. I was overly impressed by the number of Virginians who were knowledgeable about these battles, and reverent about preserving the memory of those times. Unfortunately, I don't know if there is a middle ground between progress and perfect preservation. I'm sure if that first cargo trailer pulls up to fill the store with goods and merchandise, it will be met with cheers and boos. As long as the people of Orange County are heard on the issue, what ever happens they will know that their opinions were made known
Submitted by HillbillyRob at: October 24, 2010
Insane that we should throw history under the dozers...all for mega malls and shopping for cheap plastic crap that is neither important nor lasting.
Submitted by saffron_516 at: September 24, 2010
BOYCOTT WALMART and only then will they stop taking away your open space and closing down your favorite local store. Keep your own GDP large by shopping locally!!!!
Submitted by Michele at: June 7, 2010
I have been planning a trip to Virginia to tour the battlefields. I hope the citizens value and protect what I am coming there to see, and support with my tourist dollars,and it is not a Wal-mart.
Submitted by Gregory at: June 7, 2010
Walmart, again? Really?! The terrible irony of this recurring story is that our battlefields are essential, real, true and irreplaceable in our history and national character; Walmart represents everything that is disposable, cheap, and fake. If it isn't Walmart obliterating battlefields, it's Disney planning a Civil War theme park. Are these companies ignorant or apathetic? They don't know and they don't care. But the don't get a penny of my business.
Submitted by sean mclaud at: May 21, 2010
my great grandfather'slast day's were spent there. this store does not do him,or any of the fallen soldier's justice.
Submitted by Hudson Valley NY Guy at: May 20, 2010
It is terrible that a battlefield so significant to our Civil War heritage is threatened with being turned into another sprawling autotopia of ugly big box stores. In NY's Hudson Valley, Developers turned the Revolutionary War era Fishkill Supply depot into a shopping mall that failed about 20 years later. Now there is a Home Depot, and abandoned mall buildings, and just a few markers denoting this important site. Wilderness Battlefield is sacred ground that should be saved from Big Box stores that will probably sit mostly vacant in less that 20 years. Hopefully Virginia will be smarter than New York, who allowed the great Penn Station be demolished for a Hockey Rink, and let the Fishkill Supply Depot be turned into a big box home improvement supply depot.
Submitted by Mary at: May 19, 2010
Boycott Wal-Mart for this reason and for so many other reasons. It's that simple.
Submitted by Chris at: May 19, 2010
It's a really simple message our nation need's to start listening to for so many reasons including the topic being discussed here - don't shop at Walmart.
Submitted by zoe at: May 8, 2010
Citizens of Orange, wake up! You have something not found anywhere else in the entire USA: hallowed ground from the Wilderness Campaign. It is not just another battlefield! You will find your job creation in preserving the history beneath your feet, not on the shelves of another Walmart. Reenactors, history buffs, students, and tourists have wallets, too.
Submitted by #1 at: May 3, 2010
There are enought Walmarts. Leave history and the battlefields ALONE
Submitted by bape@harbornet.com at: April 30, 2010
There is already so much encroachment in the area surrounding historic sites, that we all need to step back and really look at what is going on. County boards and other local agencies must step back and think. In my area a large site was set apart just for those big box stores, and a hospital. Design is regulated and those stores have complied with these regulations. The area is a huge success, and does not inject itself into a community working to protect is historic heritage.
Submitted by Kathleen at: April 23, 2010
Although I am Canadian, I have family ties to this battlefield and others in the region. From what I've been told, Robert E. Lee and George Washington were cousins and they are ancestors of mine via my mothers side. I find history fascinating because it never seems to fail that we fail to learn from our past mistakes. Important battles were waged on this land, and if anything, large placards should be erected at these sites telling of the battles and the important lessons that we should take away from the loss of life and of what these men were fighting for. Families sacrificed for a reason and to have that encroached upon by big business for the sake of profit, merely shows that we have yet to learn from our past mistakes. Yes I'm not a local, and I may never have the opportunity to visit this history rich region, but I do have 'family ties' and that makes it that much important to me to get my message across. I am an environmental scientist that tries hard, and in many cases does it for free, to educate people to do the right thing by their communities, their environment, and their health and wellbeing. My personal opinion is that the people should join together as a community to promote local shops to produce and sell what they need - put the money in the hands of the locals to keep the community sustainable. Join forces against going the cheap route and allowing big box stores to infiltrate this amazingly beautiful and history rich countryside and put money in the hands of big box store and companies that spread their physically, ecologically and psychologically polluting viral wave no less infective than small pox and other virus' that spread and killed hundreds of thousands in their path over the course of history. The only difference is this wave is physically visible and yet we still fail to 'see it'. People, we need to learn from history and not get caught up by the cheap prices; one way or another, the price is always paid.
Submitted by Loveourhistory at: April 22, 2010
Walmart should have it's own museum with the number of stores they put up, how about they leave the little guy alone, the one who appreciates these moments in our history and put it somewhere else there is plenty of field to go around people!
Submitted by flaming at: April 22, 2010
Good on the protesters. I sometimes think that authority sets its face against the people no matter what evidence is put before them. They might not be corrupt,just pig-headed. It sounds as though there are other suitable sites yet they are baking this sensitive one.
Submitted by Russ Smith at: April 22, 2010
Regarding Mr. Johnson's comments below: The letter Mr. Johnson presented at a public hearing as proof that the National Park Service did not oppose earlier commercial development in the area was in fact our comments on a proposed site plan well AFTER the decision to rezone that property commercial was already made. I tried to correct this misunderstanding at the hearing when Mr. Johnson presented this information, but he would not allow me to speak. The NPS has been totally truthful in all its dealings with Orange County, as the public has a right to expect.
Submitted by David at: April 21, 2010
Groups like Walmart are rapidly destroying Historical Sites all over the world. Their callous lack of concern for anything historical should tell decent people that they are interested in financial gain. Historical sites and records mean nothing to groups like this.Unfortunately the American judicial system permits this kind of destruction to go full steam into oblivion.This action is the very basic tool by which governments destroy a nations heritage.
Submitted by Mac at: April 21, 2010
This aricle is the best I have read about the Walmart/Wilderness Battlefield issue. Perhaps eminent domain can be used to preserve the battlefield. I know this is not the desired pathway. Cooperation toward understanding is more likely to result in future agreements. Eminent domain will make for fierce resistance in the future. However use of E.D. should be used if no acceptable resolution can be reached.
Submitted by MJFeezr at: April 21, 2010
I, too, feel that the area is definitely worth preserving and fighting for. My great-great grandmother, Permelia Chewning Higgerson, fought to keep her farm and home safe from the invading Union forces. She stood her ground to protect what was sacred to her and her family. She was also fighting for the home of her mother, also under siege, and located just over the hill. Permelia left Orange County in 1873, with her five children, and began a long and difficult journey to make a new life in Missouri. She was one of many civilians affected by the Battle of the Wilderness, which truly was the turning point of the war. I feel that if we continue to allow Wal-Mart and urban sprawl to spread to the edges of our most sacred grounds, what then, if anything will be sacred? We know that the Battle of the Wilderness is among the most endangered battlefields in our nation. Let's save our history because I don't want to have to bring my grandchildren to the park, look out across the areas that were part of that most significant battle, and say, " look just beyond the Wal-Mart parking lot" to point out areas of significance to them and to their families. Many thanks to the citizens of Orange County who are working to fight this sprawl and to protect our battlefield.
Submitted by Jonboy at: April 21, 2010
"I pledge allegiance to the flag, of the United Corporations against America. And to the Republic that they intend to topple..."
Submitted by Pookie at: April 21, 2010
How could you even think about taking such sacred land where thousands of soldiers died! It's a crime and all you fat cats that turn a blind eye in the name of money should feel shame! It's an outrage. Go find another parcel and honor history and the dead!
Submitted by Hapykat at: April 21, 2010
We need to stop losing our American past to these Big Box Giants!
Submitted by bert at: April 21, 2010
There is a lesson for all of us in this. Never underestimate, or always hold in extremely high regard that (history) which is yours. Plan, then act...quickly. And in light of the Sesquicentennial of the Civil War mightn't there be an effort to find some common ground.
Submitted by TF at: April 20, 2010
I would like to know the total number of Walmart box structures (nationally) that the company has constructed and then subsequently abandoned...
Submitted by Anonymous at: April 20, 2010
The young men who gave up their lives on this battlefield 150 years ago deserve a peaceful place where they may be remembered. A Walmart with acres of parking and shopping carts might be honored by merchants and buyers, but the dead soldiers deserve much, much more.
Submitted by jonessolo at: April 20, 2010
wal mart is big business and what big business wants it gets and there is no concern as to who get stepped on. I don't shop here and haven't for nearly 2 years nor will I in the future. All wal mart cares about is preceeded by the dollar sign. I hae these people because they are totally unconcerned about american history.
Submitted by aggiebu at: April 20, 2010
Why is it that the Walmart stores often choose historic properties especially in areas that are trying to maintain and the funds for such things are usually a struggle. I wish they would appreciate the value of keeping historical presevation important.
Submitted by Swampsista at: April 20, 2010
What is it with WalMart and historic battlefields? The company needs some serious re-training on the significance of historic sites. If we continue to allow politicians who are in league with large corporations to decide the fate of our historic inventory, then it will all be gone. For too long, the telling of our history has been at the mercy of what is easy, convenient and not too taxing on the mind or the purse. It seems for many of those in the position of power, history is fun and cute as long as it doesn't get in the way of concrete and greenbacks.
Submitted by tocomarn@yahoo.com at: April 20, 2010
As a history major with a master degree I'm disgusted by the Walmart plans. I have written a letter to the Walmart president. I have given funds to the project. I hope people will come to the conclusion that once gone it can never be again.
Submitted by Visitor at: April 20, 2010
I often meet friends at the Wilderness Battlefield for rest and relaxation. We sit and talk, visit and catch up. Walk around a bit. We always go out to eat, somewhere local. I always look for historic sections to spend my money. That is where I shop. I like supporting the businesses that are local to an area. A lot of people are sick of the sprawl. Supervisors should listen to the people who elected them. The problem I have with Walmart is that they end up building a store every few miles. I have one six miles away and one two miles away. I do not shop at Walmart for this reason. I think they put local people who built communities out of business. I do not like that. I love the town of Orange and I like to visit the battlefield. I like the supervisor's idea who voted against the Wallmart. Keep the battlefield. Build the Wallmart somewhere else.
Submitted by Jan at: April 20, 2010
The article is too long.
Submitted by annieb at: April 20, 2010
Excellent review and update on topic which has created such volatile dialogue and emotions. A year ago we were embroiled amid a war of words, and accompanying attitudes and opinions about the matter. Lest we forget! Many of us have not forgotten and value Christopher Shea's articulation now. May our courts remain wise and respectful, recognizing and honoring that our history IS our future with regard to preservation of this irreplaceable and unique site.
Submitted by BOB E LEE UR/O at: April 20, 2010
SAVE THE WILDERNESS BATTLEFIELD !
Submitted by honor & respect the sacrifices at: April 20, 2010
It is a profoundly sad reality that companies like Walmart inspite of all of the socially cynical, rhetoric, and political posturing to the contrary, are primarily concerned with making as much money with the least amount of economic inconveniences as possible, while the very people they exploit stand blithely by.
Submitted by Mark Johnson at: April 20, 2010
"He insisted the Park Service did not express any concerns when McDonald's and Sheetz went in, in 1994 and 2000. Smith disputes this, as does Craig Rains, a plaintiff and a member of the Friends of Wilderness Battlefield. Concerns were raised, Smith says, but "no one was listening." I didn't "insist" , I stated a fact. As I informed this "reporter", the National Park Service went so far as to send a letter to the county (circa 2000) that clearly said that they had no objection to the developement. Developement that was CLOSER to the existing National Park than the Walmart site. Smith has a historic disregard for the truth.
Submitted by Don at: April 20, 2010
To keep things exactly as they were is impossible! Time marches on and the is no stopping! Put a plack at the place where historical events happened and move on. If you want to see things theway they where, invent a time machine!
Submitted by hamsamwich at: April 20, 2010
If land is to be preserved it must be bought at fair market value and funds must be earmarked for maintenance. Any other way does not work. Is the enteire state of Virginia to be reserved for preservation because you don't like Walmart?
Submitted by Diane at: April 20, 2010
I love this email and staying in touch!
Submitted by beentheredonethat at: April 20, 2010
If you stop, they will only return with something worse, such as wind turbines. There is only one way to preserve physical heritage and that is OWNERSHIP. Buy the land you want to save. Preservation, historical, and other funding agencies are there to help.
Submitted by pmwm at: April 20, 2010
Just another reason I don't shop at Walmart.
Submitted by Sam Thrush at: April 20, 2010
Is there any way the issue can be resolved with both parties happy? Are there any design ordinances within the local municipality codes to allow them to change the appearance of Wal-Mart. If so I would propose that the decor of Wal-Mart to resemble local design and that the building itself would be limited to the amount of frontage along the road. After reading this article, it sounds like Wal-Mart could challenge the whole design review because sheetz and McDonalds were not change from their typical appearance.
Submitted by Pat at: April 20, 2010
Walmart always wins. Walt would roll over in his grave if he knew how they don't care what havic they wrought as long as they make a buck.
Submitted by pennstatecntrygirl at: April 20, 2010
It is a sad day when corp america..in this case the death star known as wal mart thinks it should obliterate something so important as civil war history. I hope locals keep up the fight and win!