HOME | CONTACT | WRITE TO THE EDITOR | WORK AT C-VILLE
cville.acac.com
 
Issue #21.11 :: 03/17/2009 - 03/23/2009
History repeats itself as Wal-Mart eyes the Wilderness battlefield

Battling again

BY KATHRYN FAULKNER

When Gens. Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant first met in battle, it was in May 1864, at a site called Wilderness—just 50 miles northeast of Charlottesville. And the result of that meeting was some of the bloodiest fighting of the Civil War.

The intersection near the proposed site isn’t exactly pristine. There’s already a McDonald’s, a Sheetz, a 7-Eleven and a string of offices.

The place is a densely forested tract of land located at the intersection of Routes 3 and 20. It is at this same intersection that Wal-Mart intends to build a 141,000-square-foot Supercenter, and it’s here that a different fight is shaping up, with preservationists against property-rights advocates in yet another quarrel over the development of historic green spaces.

“It was a horrific battle,” says Russ Smith of the National Park Service, “because for much of the battle the two sides couldn’t see each other, so it was very confused. Plus, part of the woods caught on fire, so wounded men were being burned alive during the battle.” Twenty-nine thousand men were killed, wounded, or captured at Wilderness in two days of inconclusive fighting.

Russ Smith, Superintendent of Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Park, stands at Ellwood, which dates back to approximately 1790. It is said that Robert E. Lee’s father wrote his memoirs in the house, and the fields surrounding the house were part of the Battle of the Wilderness.

This “bloody draw” kicked off Grant’s Overland Campaign, marking the beginning of the end of the Civil War. Lee’s surrender came just 11 months later and 110 miles away at Appomattox on April 9, 1865.

That was nearly a century and a half ago. But a recent YouTube video, produced by Wal-Mart Watch, suggests that if both Lee and Grant were alive today, they’d be fighting on the same side. And their rival would be a formidable one: the world’s largest retailer.

In the video, the generals, back from beyond, pal around at the site of that first encounter:

“Needless to say, we weren’t exactly on the same side of things when we were alive,” jokes Grant.

“No, no we weren’t,” Lee replies. “Much blood was spilled over our differences. But upon one thing we agree.”

Grant: “We’re agreed that Wal-Mart should not build a giant Supercenter here at the historic Wilderness Battlefield in Virginia.”

Twilight zone

BATTLE FACTS

Battle of the Wilderness

May 5-7, 1864

100,000 Union soldiers

60,000 Confederate soldiers

29,000 casualties

Inconclusive outcome; led to the battle at the Spotsylvania Courthouse a few days later

Wilderness is one of four battlefields partially contained in the Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park. Situated between Washington, D.C., and Richmond, Smith says this land was “the most fought over of the Civil War” with 100,000 casualties in the area.

Stonewall Jackson was shot by his own men just a few miles away at Chancellorsville, his amputated left arm buried at historic Ellwood Manor inside Wilderness Battlefield Park.

Historians consider Wilderness to be among the most significant battles of the war, for both South and North, evidenced by the fact that conservative Texas politician Ted Poe recently joined the state of Vermont in openly criticizing the proposed Wal-Mart development.

Not that Wal-Mart is buying up battlefield per se; the 55-acre plot of land is zoned commercial and has been since 1973. It’s situated on a ridge just opposite the National Park on Route 3, near a few other retailers about a quarter mile from the battlefield boundary.

But to many historians and preservationists, the idea of a Wal-Mart here is abominable for the site’s proximity to the park and for the fact that it’s within the historical boundaries of the battlefield.

“In 1993, Congress set up the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission (CWSAC),” says Russ Smith of the National Park Service. “Their job was to go out to the various battlefields and delineate the size of the battle on the land. They drew a line around the ‘core area’ where the most intense fighting took place, but the battles also involved a greater area...called the ‘study area.’ The Wal-Mart site is well within the study area and very, very close to the core area” of the battlefield.

The CWSAC ranked Wilderness a Priority I, Class A battlefield, its highest designation, and last spring, President Bush declared the swath of historic landmarks from Gettysburg to Monticello known as the “Journey through Hallowed Ground” a National Heritage Area.

Here in Albemarle, we’ve had our own laundry list of historic preservation battles over the years—you know, Rio Hill was a battlefield before it was a shopping center. Like 29N, much of Route 15’s “Journey through Hallowed Ground” has been compromised by strip malls and suburbs, stemming from population growth and D.C.’s ever-widening exurban sprawl.

But sprawl is a relatively new phenomenon in the largely rural and historically rich Orange County, and this particular development dispute is attracting national attention.

In December, 253 historians—Pulitzer Prize winner David McCullough, filmmaker Ken Burns, and UVA Professor Gary Gallagher among them—signed a letter to then-president Lee Scott asking Wal-Mart to build in a different location, one that would not alter “the very character of the battlefield.”

As of now it doesn’t look like that’s going to happen. Wal-Mart has submitted an application for a special-use permit (necessary for buildings over 60,000 square feet) to the Orange County Board of Supervisors and is awaiting its approval. Three of the five Supervisors support the permit, citing the commercial zoning and the concessions Wal-Mart has made to adapt its site plan and architecture to the historical surroundings.

 

Teri Pace, an Orange County Supervisor, opposes the Wal-Mart. "This is [Orange County's] gateway," says Pace, "and it is paramount that we do not have our gateway symbolized by a generic big-box."

A six-member alliance of regional and national organizations, called the Wilderness Battlefield Coalition, is mounting a counter-offensive. Not just against Wal-Mart but against what it sees as the inevitable repercussions: congestion, sprawl, and irreparable damage to an important piece of American history.

Adjacent to the Wal-Mart site, a 900-acre land parcel that’s up for rezoning threatens to lure smaller-box retailers once the Wal-Mart arrives. If that happens, says Orange County Supervisor Teri Pace (in whose district the Wal-Mart would be built) Wilderness will look increasingly like Culpeper, Fredericksburg, and Charlottesville, instead of providing a rural retreat from these centers.

Located at the Northeastern edge of Orange County, Wilderness is the county’s entry point for traffic coming from Route 15 (via Culpeper) and I-95 (via Fredericksburg) as well as its largest tourist attraction.

“This is our gateway,” says Pace, “and I think that as far as planning for future economic development and opportunity, it is paramount that we do not have our gateway symbolized by a generic big-box and the kind of generic commercialism that will evolve at that crossroads if we say that this is an appropriate place for Wal-Mart. Because it never stops there.”

With a sputtering economy and rising unemployment, it’s getting harder to have that kind of long-term perspective. The promise of added convenience, jobs, and tax revenue is winning local support for Wal-Mart. And, as Wilderness already demonstrates, it can be difficult to contain the spread of commercialism once it starts. What’s really at stake here, and what’s already been lost?

In the past four years, Orange County has experienced an enormous boom in tourism. The number of Wilderness Battlefield visitors increased 900 percent, from 171,000 in 2004 to over 1.5 million in 2008. In a few years, the country will commemorate the 150th anniversary of the Civil War. When battlefield tourists visit Wilderness then, what will they find?

Welcome to Orange County

“To be honest with you, I can’t wait for the Wal-Mart. Tomorrow would be great,” Kim Dodson tells me as she fills up on gas across the street from the proposed Wal-Mart site. “We get nailed at Bloom’s with the price of groceries there. We have to drive to Fredericksburg just to go shopping.”

 

Inside the office of his tire business, Orange County Supervisor Mark Johnson has a wall with the portraits of every U.S. president. He calls the proposed Wal-Mart “the continuation of how it’s been developed over the past 40 years.”

Arnold Galyen, another gas station customer, says Wal-Mart would be a good thing. “They should have protected this area earlier. The damage has been done.”

Orange County Supervisor Mark Johnson agrees. He rejects preservationists’ argument that putting in a Wal-Mart at the intersection of Routes 3 and 20 would ruin the rural landscape around the battlefield.

“That horse left the barn a long time ago,” he says. “There’s a lot of commercial activity in that area, even closer to the battlefield. It’s not untouched; this [Wal-Mart] is basically the continuation of how it’s been developed over the past 40 years.”

Already there’s a Sheetz gas station, a McDonald’s, and a small strip mall with a Subway between the park boundary and the Wal-Mart parcel. Which prompts the question, how did that happen?

“Ten or 15 years ago there was a debate about whether a Sheetz and a McDonald’s should go in at that intersection,” Smith remembers. “Preservationists and others said that that’s not a good location and fought those things. The irony is now they are being used as an argument for further development.”

It’s a familiar quandary facing preservationists, especially in Virginia where battlefields outnumber, well, Wal-Marts: How do you stop commercialization once it starts? In other words, what if you don’t get there first?

One solution is damage control. Maybe you can’t kick retailers out, but you can try to make McDonald’s have smaller arches (which it does) and Sheetz look less like a spaceship (which it doesn’t).

Over the past year and a half, Wal-Mart has worked with preservationists and county officials on several architectural and landscape design changes to make the store more unique. “It’s not going to be the Taj Mahal or the Natural Bridge,” says Johnson, “but hopefully it will be more attractive than a standard big-box.”

Contrary to early site plans, Wal-Mart says the store will no longer be visible from the battlefield. “You won’t even be able to see it from Route 3,” according to spokesman Keith Morris. “What’s hard for people to realize is that the site we’ve chosen is 55 acres, and we’re only building on 19 acres. The rest of it is for landscape, and a sizeable chunk of it will be preserved.”

A spokesman for the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Robert Neiweg, says he disagrees with Wal-Mart’s position that the store will not be visible from the battlefield. He’s also concerned that resulting traffic congestion will necessitate the four-laning of Route 20 through a portion of the battlefield.

Supervisor Johnson says expanding Route 20 won’t be necessary. “It’s a busy road, but if you compare it with 29 going into Charlottesville for instance, Route 20 has still got a lot of capacity.”

Wal-Mart’s been in the spotlight recently for a couple of reasons: record sales last quarter, despite a global recession, and the company’s announcement that it’s laying off up to 800 employees at its Arkansas headquarters due to downsizing in the U.S. real estate division. Nonetheless, Wal-Mart created 33,000 American jobs last year.

In the face of declining employment and tax revenue, some in Orange County are just thankful to be on Wal-Mart’s radar. The new store could deliver up to 300 jobs and $500,000 in tax revenue.

“Like just about every other government in the world, we’re trying to figure out how to pay for things and not cut back services anymore than we have to,” says Johnson. “I don’t care what people think about Wal-Mart; the fact is they are growing right now.”

So is Orange County.

According to the Census Bureau, between 2000 and 2007 Orange County experienced an overall population increase of 25.5 percent. During the same period Virginia grew by 8.5 percent and the U.S. by 7.2 percent.

The county’s portion of Route 3 has already sprouted three housing developments west of the battlefield: Lake of the Woods (4,260 lots), Somerset Farm (275 lots), and Wilderness Shores (1,006 lots), which, according to Johnson, is consistent with Orange County’s long-term plan.

“Route 3 has been identified as a place where we wanted to direct development,” he says. “We’ll benefit from people coming in from other counties to shop [at Wal-Mart]. The county does need a tax space beyond residential.”

Of the four Wal-Marts within a 20-mile radius of Wilderness (three in Fredericksburg, one in Culpeper) none is in Orange County. Johnson wants to see some of that business stay local.

“We’re getting [our residents] to spend their tax dollars in Orange instead of in Fredericksburg or Culpeper.”

A different vision

Orange County’s vision statement reads: “Sustain and enhance the rural quality of life for Orange County citizens while improving their well-being.”

According to Supervisor Pace, embracing big-box retail at the expense of the county’s most significant historical landmark would “totally negate the vision statement.” She’s concerned that the Wal-Mart development is being seen as a quick fix instead of a long-term strategy to capitalize on Orange County’s rural and historic assets.

When it comes to the economic future of the county, Pace explains, “it’s important to capture a unique item or service—that’s what we have in Orange with agriculture, agri-tourism, niche farming, and a beautiful piedmont landscape. If we’re going to try to compete in the same market as Albemarle, Spotsylvania, Culpeper—if we’re going after the same kind of economic development—we’re not going to do so well.”

The Wilderness Battlefield Coalition aims to help Orange County devise a long-term sustainable development strategy. It’s offering $40,000, plus the use of its experts, to conduct a land-use study on how to avoid congestion, highway expansion, and damage to the county’s historic resources.

Instead, it hopes to: “Shield the rural character of the county and protect our historic and scenic resources from the undesirable effects of uncontrolled growth, thereby preserving the unique and distinguishing characteristics of Orange County”—a goal lifted straight out of the county’s own Comprehensive Plan, passed in 2005.

“All we’re trying to do with our dollars is help Orange County do now what it has known for at least the past four to five years that it should be doing for itself,” says the National Trust’s Neiweg.

So far the offer has not been accepted.

In an effort to keep Wal-Mart out of Wilderness, the National Trust is also working to invalidate the commercial zoning status of the land parcel, citing a 2001 provision to the Orange County stale zoning ordinance that requires landowners of commercially zoned property to act on the zoning within five years or the land will revert to its previous zoning, agricultural in this case.

Orange County has refuted the stale zoning charge, stating that the provision is not retroactive. But “they didn’t offer a legal basis for the position they’ve taken,” says Neiweg. “The fact that in 1973 the parcel was zoned commercial, it would seem to me to define the notion of stale zoning.”

Of course, there’s always the chance that Wal-Mart could decide to build elsewhere, something for which Supervisor Pace is advocating heavily. She says there are two other suitable sites further down Route 3, west of the battlefield, near the three housing developments: a 19-acre parcel adjacent to Bloom’s, and a 40-acre site near the entrance of Somerset Farm. At the latter site, Pace says traffic from both Somerset Farm and Wilderness Shores could access the Wal-Mart without ever using Route 3.

“That’s just smart planning.”

Supervisor Johnson, a proponent of the current site, is less optimistic: “I kind of think if Wal-Mart decided to move it down the road a mile or so, there’d just be another group that would oppose it. Maybe I’m cynical, but that’s kind of what I expect. They’re talking about moving it a mile or so down the road, not 10 miles away.”

As for Wal-Mart, it’s not considering any other sites at this time: “We’ve looked at other sites...through lengthy analysis. This site is planned for future commercial development,” says Morris. “This would be an ideal location.”
 

Old story

This may be the closest Wal-Mart has ever tried to build to a National Park, but there have been plenty of variations on the same theme.

Between 2004 and 2006, the Civil War Preservation Trust acquired 214 acres for the Chancellorsville Battlefield after developers put forth a plan to build an I-95 bypass and 20,000 homes on unprotected “core” battlefield.

Russ Smith of the National Park Service recalls how “the local community just came up in opposition to [the proposal]. It wasn’t just about preservation; a lot of it was about people coming down here to get away from Northern Virginia and Northern Virginia was coming to park on their front door.”

In 1996, Wal-Mart was criticized for planning a store near Ferry Farm, the boyhood home of George Washington in Southern Stafford, Virginia. After all was said and done, Wal-Mart moved a short distance away.

In the next few months, Orange County officials will hear from the public and decide the fate of the Wilderness Wal-Mart.

“At this point, a majority has said that they are supportive of it,” says Johnson. “But we have to let the process go ahead and play out, and we have to have the public hearings and then see where we are.”

Neiweg hopes the process is as transparent as possible for the public. “The Board of Supervisors’ taking positions at this point is premature; not all the information is available,” he says. “It should be up to Orange County residents.”

Across the street from the Wal-Mart site, in a small strip mall with a barber shop, Henry Flack waits for a haircut. When asked what he thinks the county should do, he replies:   

“Wal-Mart is needed in this area as far as I’m concerned. It’s good for me, but I understand where the preservationists are coming from. I think it’s going to happen sooner or later, whether it’s Wal-Mart or something else.”

Maybe the commercialization of the Wilderness Battlefield isn’t inevitable, as Flack feels it is, but it’s certainly possible. Despite plenty of roadblocks—a weak economy, maturing “new urbanism” and anti-sprawl movements, a renewed interest in Civil War heritage and the “Journey through Hallowed Ground”—big-box retail still has plenty of momentum, and there’s a good chance Wilderness will become the next link in the Wal-Mart chain. What that would mean for the future of Orange County remains uncertain.

But Pace is sure of one thing: “I’ve never been anywhere where a Wal-Mart stands alone.”

 
Comments
The anti-Walmart political lobby is now manipulating peoples' emotions about the Civil war to control land use that isn't even on the battlefield. How convenient that they are allied with the arrogant national land use prohibition lobby in the name of "history". If every piece of land on or near where some battle was fought had to be "preserved" there wouldn't be anything left anywhere on the planet.
ewvMarch 17th, 2009 01:05am
As per the other comment by ewv, they are obviously very ignorant. The country would be a better place if all that kind of land were preserved. If you can't drive 20 minutes to one of 4 other Greed monsters (Walmart etc..) then you obviously should not be driving anywhere... Remember, money can only (and only sometimes at that..) solve short term problems. It almost always creates more problems than it solves..
Bob VanderVeerMarch 17th, 2009 11:24am
The people who favor having the walmart anywhere in that area don't really know what they will eventually get. I have worked at a walmart for 9 years (retiring 2 years ago) and have lived within 5 miles of a walmart. I currently live in Lake of the Woods and would Never has moved there if I had the fore knowledge that the area would be so vastly down graded. The people who don't like driving so far to shop obviously should have moved closer to shopping centers. If there is anyway I can help oppose this walmart I will certainly do it, because I don't want it anywhere within 15 miles of me. Remember, be careful what you ask for, you just might get it....
Georgia VMarch 17th, 2009 11:29am
In order for a debate to be ethical - the facts have to be available and though I support Battlefield Preservation - the way this issue is being portrayed is fundamental dishonest and will ultimately undercut and harm not only this effort but other (perhaps much more legitimate) efforts because.... look at that map... specifically at the gray area between the yellow and green and tell me what it is. Being gray like much of the rest of the map, would one assume that it is also just trees and fields? As yourself why that area is not colored Green or Yellow instead. The reason why is that - that area is about 20 businesses including a 7-11, a Sheetz and a McDonalds. So ALL of this existing development lies in between the existing battlefield and the proposed WalMart. The lady talks about a "Gateway". Okay. Let's assume that WalMart goes away. What will the "Gateway" look like? Well.. what it will look like - is the existing 7-11, Sheetz, McDonalds and about 20 other businesses. Why is this fact not shown on the map? Remember - I support historic preservation and IMHO - the way this particular issue is being framed will harm future efforts for other properties because hard-core opponents will use this to show just how dishonest preservation efforts can be....
LarryGMarch 17th, 2009 01:52pm
There are already enough Wal-Marts in that area!
Fred MMarch 17th, 2009 07:57pm
To understand what a true unspoiled battlefield experience is, go to McDowell Battlefield in Highland County and stand on that bald mountain top with nothing but the sound of wind through the tree tops. Even cars going by on the highway ruin a battlefield. When will people realize the presevation of wide open space is important in its on right. Soon a ride in the country will be nonexistant. just never-ending subdivisions and shopping centers.
scottMarch 18th, 2009 12:37am
Walmart-grab the 40 acre site next to the Somerset housing development as fast as you can and build an innovative sustainable eco-conscious 'big box' you can be proud (and advertise the heck out) of. Provide pedestrian and bicycle friendly access from the 5541 built-in households of the neighboring Lake of the Woods (4,260 lots), Somerset Farm (275 lots), and Wilderness Shores (1,006 lots) housing developments to your store. And since you only need 19 acres of the 40 acre site, parcel off the rest of the site for complementary retailers, restaurants, and feel-good public spaces with the stipulation that they be built-out with innovative, sustainable, and eco-councious guide lines also (you can use the parceling profits to finance your own building costs!). Take the high road in more ways than one; end the war by just exiting the 'battlefield'. -Orange County take the Wilderness Battlefield Coalition's $40,000 offer to devise a long-term sustainable development strategy for your community. Use its experts, to conduct a land-use study on how to avoid congestion, highway expansion, and damage to the county’s historic resources. Preserve the Battlefield site and develop a sensitive Historical Heritage visitors center that promotes your county's historical assets as well as the those new eco-friendly sustainable development strategies you'll be developing with! You'll attract vacationing pre$ervationi$t and just might entice some of them to put down permanent roots in your neck of the 'wilderness' if you play your cards right!
TerriMarch 18th, 2009 05:46pm
I am for preservation of the civil war battlefields, but it seems that if there are already businesses located near the Wilderness battlefield, the pristineness has been lost already. People who live in that area need a store like Walmart close by, especially with the cost of gasoline ever rising.
T.S. HallMarch 18th, 2009 07:14pm
It is amusing to hear all the opinions about this proposed Wal-Mart in Orange County, most of which I'm sure have never visited or driven through the county. First of all, between where the proposed store would be located and the actually battlefield, there is a 7-11, Sheetz, McDonalds, two strip malls, a used car dealership, a bank, and at least 3 houses on Rt 20 If preservation of the battlefields are a priority, NONE of the above mentioned would exist today, including the intersection of Rts 3 & 20. The other thing I want to mention is most of the stories from the press make the appear that WM wants to build their store right on the battlefield. So not true! Also, to the people that said there are enough wal-marts in the area, and you shouldn't be driving if you can't drive 20 miles to the nearsest WalMart---you are missing the whole point!!! The reason the board of supervisors are even considering letting WM to come into the county (and they are usually very strict on what happens in the county) is that they want Orange County citizens to spend they hard earn money in Orange County, which tax money comes into the county to pay for services in the county. Therefore, money stays in Orange County. See how that works? Believe it or not, people want to spend money in their own community & support businesses, which means more jobs come in the county, which means not dealing with Fredericksburg traffic (Have you driven to Fredericksburg lately? Rt 3 in Fredericksburg is a joke!!) Let's face it, If not Wal-Mart, then someone else will come to built maybe 5, 10, 20 years later, then this conversation/controversy will start all over again. Whatever decision is made should be made by the citizens and government of Orange County & Orange County alone, not people from Vermont, Texas, or even Charlottesville.
JamesMarch 19th, 2009 01:11am
Has anyone ever noticed the coorelation between socio-economic factors and the number of Wal-Marts? 3 of the weathiest counties in the country are an hours drive away, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Montgomery MD. How many Wal-Marts are in those counties?
superMarch 19th, 2009 08:18am
I can appreciate the concern and inconvenience of driving 20 miles to shop. But, in the interest of your personal freedom you will be giving up another freedom .. .. personal decision making. Once you allow Wal-Mart in your neighborhood or community you will be giving up the right to shop where you want. You laugh, but from personal experience I have seen firsthand the socio-economic problems, the store closings of local retailers and the subsidy’s given Wal-Mart by the local, state and federal government. FACT: The poverty level in income in US dollars is 17,650.00 per year, the average wage for an hourly employee at Wal-Mart is $13.861.00. Newly hired employees of Wal-Mart are given a list of local, state and federal programs they will qualify for ( welfare, food stamps, housing, medical etc.) because of their “status” and income level. A “HUGE DRAIN” on the local economy. FACT: Wal-Mart receives over “ONE BILLION” nationally in subsidy’s which affects the local economy for schools, police and fire protection. Local governments find out later they gave away the farm and now are stuck with a poor neighbor. FACT: Currently there is over 26 million square feet of empty Wal-Marts in the US in communities where Wal-Mart decided the store was not profitable enough. Now you have a building no one can fill and no so called revenue for the community. FACT: Over 80% of the crime that happens at Wal-Mart is in the parking lots. Customers are lead to believe they are safe with installed cameras viewing the lot, but the real reason the cameras are placed is to discourage employees from union activity and or group activity. They have been used many times to discharge employees for this reason. They have the highest incidence of rape, murder and theft of any corporation in the world on premises. The cameras are not viewed by security. Just research the stores in Hampton, Woodbridge and Virginia Beach, Va. FACT: Wal-Marts “Green buildings” and their love of the environment is a joke. They have been fined MILLIONS in most store locations due to poor storage of hazardous materials that eventually leak into the streams nearby and poison local waterways and lakes. Lake of the Woods could be affected and deemed unsafe. FACT: If you are woman you will “NEVER” be promoted. And……… Supervisor Mark Johnson, say good bye to your tire store and any of your friends who have businesses in the area. Saving the preservation of the park nearby is paramount small development might be okay but Wal-Mart is a huge drain not only on the environment but the local economy.
DaveMarch 19th, 2009 03:15pm
So if they stop this, then all that will happen is that commercial buildings will be built that conform and need no zoning approval. So the choice is not wal mart or empty fields, it is between wal mart and 50 acres of businesses such as a strip mall or strip club. The concesions by walmart to only develop 19 acres is a GIFT and better be grabbed while it is still on the table. There are a lot more important battles to be fought than this one. Some of you people are nuts.
corporal agarnMarch 19th, 2009 06:36pm
Hello There Walmart should find a another place to builld their store please!!! . and all civilwar battlefileds should be preserved. and no more Walmarts in the view of the battlefield!!!!!!
Michael V. FlynnMarch 19th, 2009 11:13pm
Hey James, I know and love Orange County. If you want a Wal-mart so badly, build it on 15 between Gordonsville and Orange. Leave the Wilderness alone.
TomMarch 20th, 2009 06:03pm
Corporal Agarn.....appreciate the fact that you think I'm nuts. I happen to look at everyone who likes wal-mart, chain restaurants and housing developments as nuts...so I guess we're even. I could personally care less if another house or retail center is ever built in the entire state again. We've had 50 years worth of development in the past 10. Enough. There is no reason to hasten the destruction of that battlefield. Jobs? Are you kidding me? Of the 300 people they plan to employ, you can count on the fact that no more than 100 will be full time positions...if that. All of the managers will relocate from an existing store. Perhaps Orange County needs jobs, but I doubt it would be hard to find something better than walmart. People need to think. Get outside the so-called box and quit building them. Terri Pace sounds like someone who is thinking a little beyond the norm...and that's good. As for you who do not want any input from people outside Orange County, well, too bad. The Wilderness Battlefield is a national landmark. It holds importance for people all over the country. People from other parts of the country have voiced their displeasure with walmart and the simple fact that this decision could, and in fact will, ruin that battlefield eventually. No one is telling you, personally what to do with your land or your County. So, get over your silly "land-use rights" crap now.
Fred RickardMarch 20th, 2009 11:50pm
If every piece of land on or near where some battle was fought had to be "preserved" there wouldn't be anything left anywhere on the planet No, you're wrong....there would be everything left. But why would I think that someone who made this statement would ever "get it". "some battle" "had to be preserved"....why don't you move to a place like New York. You may then share your weird conspiracies with Shawn Hannity and then enjoy the finest in "compatible development". There will be no blasted CW battlefield in your way either.
FredMarch 21st, 2009 12:00am
Notwithstanding the incomprehensible flailing of the hysterical about "conspiracies", the resistance to arrogant preservationsists and their anti-property rights agenda is fully justified. That museums or land in a natural state can be a value does not mean that anywhere a battle took place must be preserved out of "respect" for the long gone. After the scope of the bloody history of the mankind across the globe, if every piece of land where men fought and died were off limits to human use there would in fact not be any place left to use. The world belongs to the living. The civil war was not fought to turn the south into a cemetery never again to be touched anywhere there was a battle. To prohibit freedom of the living in a civilized country demeans the memory of the best who fought for such ideals. Respect for those ideals and those who defended them is understood and appreciated in our minds, not by locking up the land by confiscation and eminent domain so that preservationist extremists can worship nature and rant against human development.
ewvMarch 22nd, 2009 12:07am
I stand by my assertions. your choices are 1) a wal mart with 31 acres preserved (reqires zoning approval) 2) a shopping center with a crap load os smaller stores. ((zoning approval not required) 3) You can put your money where your mouth is and bring forth a coalition to buy the property for whatever wal mart will sell it you for. Like I said, try fighting a battle you can win.
corporal agarnMarch 22nd, 2009 06:38pm
Indeed, I always visit the Wilderness to "rant against human development" or "worship nature". Actually, I visit the Wilderness to study the battle that was fought there. I'm glad you see the importance of respect for those men who perished upon those fields and in those woods. However, it is mighty hard to comprehend any of it without having the actual site to visit. I realize how much of that battlefield is already compromised, but I see no reason to endanger it further. Seriously, walmart can't build further down the road? We "arrogant preservationists" simply want these battlefields protected. There may be some out there with a different motive or political agenda, but I for one have only one thought in mind. That is the protection of our nation's history. That being said, I can also testify to not having a problem with nature. I certainly prefer that setting over one with uneeded commercial sprawl and traffic; as would most people, I would think. Preservationists like myself, want to save as many of these sites as possible, not to "prohibit freedom of the living", but to promote the freedom to visit a significant historic site. Furthermore, I see no harm in this goal as there are numerous parts of, and even complete battlefields that have vanished. A good example is Salem Church. You and everyone else that has no use for our nation's past have at least three, if not more, walmarts in your area. We arrogant minded history buffs have only one Wilderness Battlefield. I guess I really don't understand the property rights drama. Americans are so quick to buy a cheaply built, over-priced house in the midst of some development with a homeowner's association. Amazing to me how one will accept the rights denied a homeowner by such an association, but will defend a giant corporation like walmart and their so called property rights. Perhaps I missed it, however, has someone actually mentioned confiscating this land through eminent domain? I have yet to witness a preservation group ever suggesting this. At any rate, one who does not care about the Civil War will never understand. Just like I cannot understand why anyone ever enjoys going to a walmart.
FredMarch 22nd, 2009 10:44pm
Questions for ewv: How would you feel if we put walmarts and housing developments and gas stations in such places as Yellowstone Park and the Grand Canyon? If our lands are for the living, what are we doing "locking up" those sites from development? Surely those sites, where no one even died in battle, should not be wasted as natural habitats and open ground. What are we waiting for? Let's get that first Starbucks built right next to Old Faithful. Perhaps they can offer 1/2 price deals every time it blows it's top. Human development should not go unfettered. Down with those preservationist extremists/nutjobs!
Chris in IndyMarch 23rd, 2009 11:31am
The National Park Service has routinely used and threatened eminent domain all over the counry to seize the property it wants, egged on by its wealthy, politically-connected boosters deliberately misleading people into thinking it's all "voluntary". The intent of the professional national PR campaigns employing emotional manipulation, smears and spin is to get the land by any means possible, including the carfully honed dishonesty of their campaigns. The threat and use of government coercion is always the bottom line in how they "win". Perhaps the most morally obscene of any of these scams perpetrated in the name of "history", if degrees of this evil can be distingished, was their ironic use of eminent domain to wipe out a community of 150 homeowners, farmers and small businesses to create the Minute Man National Historic Park in the name of, of all things, commemorating the beginning of the American Revolution at Lexington and Concord. The "practical" purpose was to create a "buffer" between upscale neighborhoods and the commercial area near them. All the same bogus arguments on behalf of "blood was shed there", etc. etc. were used to manipulate political support while denying that those targeted would be forced to give up their property. In their ongoing spin, dramatization and self-promotion, the National Park Service and its boosters refuse to admit to this day what they did, denying even their own history. It is not an organization or a movement to be trusted with history. One understands and appreciates history -- for those who are sincere -- from reading about it and studying historical documents and artifacts, not by "feeling" it by staring at a tree that did not exist a hundred or two hundred years ago on stolen land a couple of miles from where there are no traces of where something happened. It's time people caught on to the scam manipulative "history" promoted by the likes of the organized anti-Walmart fanatics, Ken Burns, and the powerful preservationist lobby organizations like the National Trust.
ewvMarch 23rd, 2009 01:27pm
I just drove through gainesville, va. yesterday. Anyone who wants the wal-mart should move there. You can have your choice of hundreds of corporately owned chain stores and restaurants. You can escape to a place where if you closed your eyes upon arrival you would have no clue whether you were in gainesville, va or colombia, sc. I just finished my lunch out by the irrigation pond on the farm I work at. I layed back in my truck and closed my eyes and loved the fact that I didn't have to listen to traffic, just the birds and the water. Wal-Mart supports nothing American. Nothing! Even those they employ are being taken advantage of. Keeping Wal-Mart out is not just abut the preservation of land, its about the preservation of Virginian ideals. This state is one of the most beautiful places on earth. People such as you, ewv, should be dismissed from our state. In fact I think you should leave now, don't ever come back move to Arkansas and marry one of the Walton kids all of them are on the Forbes 500 for being worth many billions of dollars. Or maybe, considering your immature approach to this topic, they can adopt you. But please, leave. You are a sorry, pathetic excuse for a man, woman or even animal. In fact are you just some program that wal-mart had invented, like a web bot or something? You scan computers trolling for any discussions about future opposition to wal mart sites, and poop out a digital, form comment? Cause I honestly can not believe someone as nitwitted as you actually exists. Unless of course, you are from the North. Though I know some Yankees and they are not nearly as obnoxious as you are. So ewv, get in your hand basket, and go where you belong!!
AJMarch 23rd, 2009 02:28pm
Corporal Argarn, I get what your saying, however, I don't trust that walmart will actually preserve the 31 acres. They will have some sort of loophole which will allow them to either lease or sell a portion of that land, if not all of it, thusly creating even more development. Walmart never comes alone. Frankly, that's my biggest fear. Once established, the sprawl will spread right to the doorstep of the NPS boundary creating a traffic situation which will cause the widening of Rt. 20. That is on the heart of the battlefield. As for putting up money and purchasing the property, that has been done frequently by several organizations at various sites. I don't know if walmart has made that an option here. As for ewv's argument, yes, it is no secret that the Park Service has taken land in the past. They did so to create Shenandoah National Park in the 1930's. The NPS no longer uses such tactics and there has been no threat of such action regarding this matter. Again, all any battlefield preservationist wants is for walmart to move down the road and simply leave the Wilderness alone. Truthfully, it's not that big a request. You see preservationists as arrogant and manipulative and that is how I see the corporations that destroy the sites I love to visit. What's more is, how arrogant are your comments directing one to the "sincere" way of studying history. Yes, I read the accounts, the diaries, I examine relics and I visit the site where it happened. I have taken people to various battlefields and read them an account at the spot where it happened. I don't know that I "feel" anything as you say we all do, but it's what I enjoy. Let me do that while you shop at a walmart a few miles further down the road.
FredMarch 23rd, 2009 07:21pm
EW, I grew up hugging many a tree, while attempting to defy the laws of gravity. Curious how you came to the conclusion, that " Civil War Preservationists" are allied with tree huggers in an all out assault on "property rights?" Have you ever owned an acre of land, a house that sits on that acre or a car free and clear of debt? Goverment will demand payment for that right. Tree huggers use Government to strip ( rape ) you of that "right." An ACW preservationist will work with you. : )
Hog_FlambeMarch 23rd, 2009 11:54pm
ewv, I don't really care for eminent domain and it should be used as the very last resort, but I have no problem with it's use to help save Manassas and to take down that Gettysburg Tower eyesore. If eminent domain is used, it darn well better be used for the greater good. In both those cases I believe it was and the owner of the land at Manassas got a hell of a deal. And I vehemently disagree with your assertion that preservationists are arrogant and intimidating. They simply use every LEGAL tool at their disposal in order to help protect what they feel is worth protecting. There are plenty of walmarts, but there's only one Wilderness battlefield. You can build a walmart anywhere. You can't move a battlefield.
Chris in IndyMarch 24th, 2009 10:03am
The National Park Service has used eminent domain all over the country for a century. It did not stop in the 1930s with wiping out rural communities at the Smokies and at Shenandoah (where state eminent domain authority was used on behalf of NPS). An excellent documentary in the earlier 1980s on how NPS operates was the PBS Frontlines "For the Good of All", which, unlike the upcoming PBS park promotions, gave an honest account. The notion that the NPS only seized property at one place "in the 1930s" is a myth spread by apologists for the agency. There are still people today threatened by it, and NPS and its boosters have tried to target even more people for new parks but who managed to beat them back and stop the new area authorization. Once NPS has acquisition authority, how much it seizes depends on how much money it has for acquisitions. If the NPS gets the authority to acquire the Walmart parcel it will get it. The owners either give up under the threat -- as what NPS calls a "willing seller" -- or it will be condemned. This has nothing to do with "Old Faithful" and everything to do with arrogant pressure groups harassing and intimidating to take what they want in a smokescreen of poetic imagery in a dishonest campaign.
ewvMarch 24th, 2009 01:29am
If any objective observer wants an illustration of how arrogant these preservationist pressure groups are in their demands to take over other people's property, he only needs to read some of the posts above. In the most recent alone: -- People who disagree with them are hysterically ordered out of the state. -- We are told by an apologist for eminent domain that he "really doesn't care for it", but will use it as a "last resort", i.e., he prefers that his victim not fight back so give the preservationist what he demands OR ELSE; is the threat "your money or your life" ok because you "really don't care for it" but will murder only as a "last resort"? -- We are told that the owner of the Gettysburg tower who did not want to sell and whose property was seized "got a hell of a deal" because his enemies the preservationists say so and never mind that it wasn't for sale and there is no such thing as a "deal" at the point of a gun. -- We are told that seizing what preservationists themselves denounce as an "eyesore" is in the "public good", while both the owner and all the public who enjoyed using the tower to look out over the battlefield are written out of the "public" as of no significance. -- We are told that threatening people with eminent domain isn't "arrogant and intimidating" because the pressure groups merely use "every legal tool at their disposal", i.e., the full coercive power of government to arrogantly intimidate on their behalf in an abuse of government power. -- We are told that they do this because of what THEY "feel" is worth "protecting" and never mind "protecting" the rights and property of those they target. -- We are told that a property owner can go "anywhere" other than where the preservationists themselves decree there is only "one" of for THEIR purposes; so never mind anyone else's rights (and never mind that the preservationists already have "the battlefield" and are lying about the Walmart site in a national smear campaign against the owner).
ewvMarch 25th, 2009 10:54pm
Wal Mart is not building ON the battlefield, they are building NEAR the battlefield with other ALREADY BUILT buildings in between. Anyone who thinks emminent domain is not out of control is NUTS. DC took over nearly 100 businesses to build a BASEBALL STADIUM. some of these small businsess had been in the same location for 40 years. The problem is DC gave them the value of the real estate BEFORE the stadium, but when they went to buy another building a coule of miles away the prices reflected the inflated value of the stadiums competition for properties. So an owner gets 450k for his building and to replace he has to pay 750k. The law suits are still working their way thru the courts as these people slowly go bankrupt. The issue is balance. We paid tax dollars already to save the battlefield. If someone wants to save more than BUY THE LAND.
corporal agarnMarch 26th, 2009 09:23pm
ewv......First and foremost...Is there a threat of the NPS "taking" this property from walmart? I'm betting the Park Service isn't in the matter at all, other than they oppose the building of the store. The person you last responded to mentioned the great deal received by the owner of the land at Manassas, not the G-burg tower.....at least that's what I got out of it. That is true, Till Hazel laughed all the way to the bank with that government check. Do you have the written record about how the owner of that tower reacted to the NPS wanting that property? Do you know that a "gun" was held to his head?Call it eminent domain if you want. I'll call it what I want. I just wonder if you are ok with the government helping a corporation take land, i.e. power lines & c. I've said my piece, I stand on what I believe in. I think I've explained myself pretty well. I have explained why it's important to me and others. If you want to continue to call me an arrogant preservationist, so be it.
FredMarch 27th, 2009 07:26am
Wherever a political campaign is mounted for an NPS expansion there is a threat of eminent domain. It's time that the public realizes what the politically-connected pressure groups don't want people to know. NPS acquires land with Congressional approval of the acquisition boundary or general area targeted. A national campaign for a park expansion while smearing the owner of the property is intended to pressure him to sell and to result in Congressional approval of NPS acquisition. NPS acquisition authority is intended to prevent private land use. Its acquisition authority includes eminent domain authority. Eminent domain is either used for an abrupt taking or is the so called "last resort" used against those who don't do as they are told. All "negotiations" prior to that include a gun to the owner's head -- or the not much less subtle "bulge under the coat". Such is the coercive nature of the "deals" from NPS and its national lobby and pressure group fronts across the country for at least a half century, including all the cynical "good cop-bad cop" schemes pretending otherwise. The Gettysburg tower was in fact taken by eminent domain. Not only is the Walmart site threatened by this cynical and abusive political process, so is all the other private property between it and the existing battlefield park and nearby.
ewvMarch 28th, 2009 03:34pm
our small press in Cville released this book a while back---perhaps the firsthand narrative of a small-unit's actions around this area would help sway someone: http://www.lulu.com/content/paperback-book/three-years-in-the-confederate-horse-artillery-%28selections%29/6827685 just a thought
hypocrite pressMay 7th, 2009 11:47am
Have your say
*
*
*
Your comment will be displayed after it has been reviewed by our editors. Please refer to our comments policy if you have any questions, or email editor@c-ville.com.
C-VILLE site search by Charlottesville's Best News and Entertainment
charlottesvillepavilion.com/
petitbebe.com/
livearts.org
www.regionten.org/
www.nestrealtygroup.com/
www.omnihotels.com/FindAHotel/Charlottesville/Dining.aspx
www.charlottesvillepavilion.com/fridaysafterfive/
Circulation VerifiedCopyright © 2010, Portico Publications
Copyright Info | Portico Corporate
Powered by PLANet w3 CMS Content Management System
PLANet Systems Group 2010