Tweet
Re: Should Perryville Become an NPS Site?
McKinney and Kirchner sound like real estate developers and not county government officials to me. Judging by their grandiose vision for the local economy they seem to be operatives and agents for commercial development when they use terms like "improving infrastructure" and "generating industry" all through the potential exploitation of the battlefield. They do not appear to be government officials who have the best interest in mind of the natural state of the battlefield and the surrounding area. How can they keep the historical location and integrity of the battlefield park intact if they wish to surround it with new developments? Because once those new developments happen, there will cease to be a panoramic view of the currently undeveloped countryside. This is a fallacy of logic and counter intuitive through building things around the park we will help enhance the park.
Pardon me questioning McKinney's twisted scientific logic, but- Can't things stay the same and still survive too? I don't understand how becoming a "national park" will elevate the national renown of the site or bolster the local economy.
Having been to Perryville Battlefield several times the last three decades, I believe it is good hands now at the state level/local level and therefore does not need National Park Service oversight. The only thing the NPS could do is perhaps help fund some future internal improvements within the park itself.
McKinney and Kirchner sound like real estate developers and not county government officials to me. Judging by their grandiose vision for the local economy they seem to be operatives and agents for commercial development when they use terms like "improving infrastructure" and "generating industry" all through the potential exploitation of the battlefield. They do not appear to be government officials who have the best interest in mind of the natural state of the battlefield and the surrounding area. How can they keep the historical location and integrity of the battlefield park intact if they wish to surround it with new developments? Because once those new developments happen, there will cease to be a panoramic view of the currently undeveloped countryside. This is a fallacy of logic and counter intuitive through building things around the park we will help enhance the park.
“You can’t be static,” said McKinney. “You either grow or you die. If you think you’re going to stay the way you are for the next 50 years, it’s just not going to happen. Organisms in life either grow or they die. It’s just that simple. It’s the law of nature."
Having been to Perryville Battlefield several times the last three decades, I believe it is good hands now at the state level/local level and therefore does not need National Park Service oversight. The only thing the NPS could do is perhaps help fund some future internal improvements within the park itself.
Comment