Tweet
Re: Gettysburg - Attempt to Save Cyclorama Building
Federal judge urges Cyclorama talks
BY SCOT ANDREW PITZER
The Gettysburg Times [Gettysburg, Penn.]
October 31, 2008
WASHINGTON - A federal judge urged opposing sides on razing the old Gettysburg Cyclorama building to find a quick resolution on the matter during a court hearing Thursday.
Judge Alan Kay told the Recent Past Preservation Network, which wants to move the historic National Park Service battlefield building, and park officials to discuss a possible relocation agreement. The park said it plans to start demolishing the building, a rare East Coast work by renowned architect Richard Neutra, in mid-December.
“You need to come to a resolution by Nov. 7,” Judge Kay said near the end of a 2-1/2 hour hearing on motions for an accelerated judgment in a nearly empty room at the E. Barrett Prettyman Court House.
The suggestion seemed more like a warning from the judge, who could issue an injunction to block demolition until the court issues a ruling, which he said is unlikely to come by mid-December. Attorneys for Recent Past Preservation said after the hearing they will seek an injunction if an agreement is not reached with the Park Service on relocating the building.
“I’m assuming that nothing is going to happen to this building, pending the resolution of this lawsuit,” Kay said about the Cyclorama structure.
The park planned to solicit bids on the demolition in November, and begin the project this coming December. Samantha Klein, the government attorney who was the only official to speak and answer questions, said she must confer with Park Service officials about it.
“You’ve given me a lot to consider here. The likelihood of this being determined before (mid-December) that date is remote,” Kay told Klein.
Kay, who heard motions on behalf of Judge Thomas F. Hogan (who will make a concluding decision in the case), at one point suggested that allowing the Cyclorama proponents to relocate the structure would be beneficial to the government’s efforts to restore Ziegler’s Grove to its July 1863 appearance. The mural was moved into a new visitor center that opened to the public this year.
“Maybe you’d be doing them (the park) a favor by picking up the building and moving it,” Kay told the Recent Past Preservation group. “It seems to me that it would be a win-win situation.”
Recent Past Preservation attorney Nicholas Yost agreed and noted that his clients — including Richard Neutra’s son Dion — have made a diligent effort to research the potential options for relocating the 47-year-old structure. That effort has included preliminary talks with Gettysburg area businessmen Eric Uberman and Robert Monahan Jr. about a potentialnew site for the building.
“The building can be moved,” Yost said, adding that his clients hired an architect to study a relocation of the cylindrical structure. “But it’s going beyond what a plaintiff should have to do.”
Yost argued that the government, not his client, should have studied alternatives to demolition. There was never any serious consideration given to alternatives, he said.
“Clearly, there were costs associated with the demolition,” Kay said, directing a question to Gettysburg National Military Park Superintendent John Latschar and Klein. “Were there any estimates about picking the building up and moving it offsite, and whether it was feasible financially?”
The park studied alternatives to demolition, but not specifically relocating the building, as part of its 1999 General Management Plan.
“Just because wisdom comes late doesn’t mean you should ignore it,” said Judge Kay, paraphrasing a quote by U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Rutledge.
Relocating the building, the federal government argued, would be impractical.
“What they’re saying (Recent Past Preservation) is that you can put it on a roller and push it across Ziegler’s Grove,” said Klein. “That would have a huge impact (on the battlefield).”
Judge Kay replied: “Do you know that for sure? They can pick up lighthouses and move them now.”
The park intends to demolish the Cyclorama building, built specifically for a mural of Pickett’s Charge that was housed in it until 2005, as well as the former visitor center located nearby and transform the landscape back to its Civil War appearance.
Both buildings sit atop Ziegler’s Grove on the Union battle line, which was the High Water Mark of the Confederacy during the July 1-3, 1863, battle in which federal forces turned back a Rebel offensive into the North.
“I don’t understand why both historic entities (the battlefield and Cyclorama building) can’t be preserved,” Kay said. “But at this point, we don’t even know what a relocation would cost, or if it could be accomplished with private money.”
Klein said the park considered “many alternatives” to razing the Cyclorama — dubbed an “eyesore” and “oil drum” by Latschar over the years — when it developed its management plan.
Most of the court session was devoted to discussion about relocating the building, the definitions of “removal” versus “demolition,” the Park Service’s Environmental Impact Statement on the project, and the statute of limitations on challenging the demolition.
“The park’s plan spoke only in terms of removal. That term is not a synonym of demolition,” said Yost. “Removal means, simply, moving something again.”
Klein disagreed and also questioned whether the group’s lawsuit (filed in December 2006) is valid.
“The statute of limitations is the primary issue here. It started to run in 1999 when the park adopted its General Management Plan,” she said, noting the time limit for legal challenges on the decision expired in 2005. “They’re trying to say that they didn’t know that removal meant demolition. The plaintiffs waited seven years before they brought this lawsuit. This court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain this lawsuit.”
Judge Kay said he’d take Klein’s argument under consideration, when he writes his opinion and forwards it to Judge Hogan. Yost responded that his group launched its effort before the six-year window expired, by submitting a Freedom of Information Act request to the park, but received no response.
“There are two competing situations here: preservation of the battlefield and preservation of an historic building,” said Yost. “If the (National Environmental Policy Act assessment) were properly followed, we might be able to preserve both.”
Judge Kay replied: “Maybe a higher court will have to make that determination.”
Eric
Federal judge urges Cyclorama talks
BY SCOT ANDREW PITZER
The Gettysburg Times [Gettysburg, Penn.]
October 31, 2008
WASHINGTON - A federal judge urged opposing sides on razing the old Gettysburg Cyclorama building to find a quick resolution on the matter during a court hearing Thursday.
Judge Alan Kay told the Recent Past Preservation Network, which wants to move the historic National Park Service battlefield building, and park officials to discuss a possible relocation agreement. The park said it plans to start demolishing the building, a rare East Coast work by renowned architect Richard Neutra, in mid-December.
“You need to come to a resolution by Nov. 7,” Judge Kay said near the end of a 2-1/2 hour hearing on motions for an accelerated judgment in a nearly empty room at the E. Barrett Prettyman Court House.
The suggestion seemed more like a warning from the judge, who could issue an injunction to block demolition until the court issues a ruling, which he said is unlikely to come by mid-December. Attorneys for Recent Past Preservation said after the hearing they will seek an injunction if an agreement is not reached with the Park Service on relocating the building.
“I’m assuming that nothing is going to happen to this building, pending the resolution of this lawsuit,” Kay said about the Cyclorama structure.
The park planned to solicit bids on the demolition in November, and begin the project this coming December. Samantha Klein, the government attorney who was the only official to speak and answer questions, said she must confer with Park Service officials about it.
“You’ve given me a lot to consider here. The likelihood of this being determined before (mid-December) that date is remote,” Kay told Klein.
Kay, who heard motions on behalf of Judge Thomas F. Hogan (who will make a concluding decision in the case), at one point suggested that allowing the Cyclorama proponents to relocate the structure would be beneficial to the government’s efforts to restore Ziegler’s Grove to its July 1863 appearance. The mural was moved into a new visitor center that opened to the public this year.
“Maybe you’d be doing them (the park) a favor by picking up the building and moving it,” Kay told the Recent Past Preservation group. “It seems to me that it would be a win-win situation.”
Recent Past Preservation attorney Nicholas Yost agreed and noted that his clients — including Richard Neutra’s son Dion — have made a diligent effort to research the potential options for relocating the 47-year-old structure. That effort has included preliminary talks with Gettysburg area businessmen Eric Uberman and Robert Monahan Jr. about a potentialnew site for the building.
“The building can be moved,” Yost said, adding that his clients hired an architect to study a relocation of the cylindrical structure. “But it’s going beyond what a plaintiff should have to do.”
Yost argued that the government, not his client, should have studied alternatives to demolition. There was never any serious consideration given to alternatives, he said.
“Clearly, there were costs associated with the demolition,” Kay said, directing a question to Gettysburg National Military Park Superintendent John Latschar and Klein. “Were there any estimates about picking the building up and moving it offsite, and whether it was feasible financially?”
The park studied alternatives to demolition, but not specifically relocating the building, as part of its 1999 General Management Plan.
“Just because wisdom comes late doesn’t mean you should ignore it,” said Judge Kay, paraphrasing a quote by U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Rutledge.
Relocating the building, the federal government argued, would be impractical.
“What they’re saying (Recent Past Preservation) is that you can put it on a roller and push it across Ziegler’s Grove,” said Klein. “That would have a huge impact (on the battlefield).”
Judge Kay replied: “Do you know that for sure? They can pick up lighthouses and move them now.”
The park intends to demolish the Cyclorama building, built specifically for a mural of Pickett’s Charge that was housed in it until 2005, as well as the former visitor center located nearby and transform the landscape back to its Civil War appearance.
Both buildings sit atop Ziegler’s Grove on the Union battle line, which was the High Water Mark of the Confederacy during the July 1-3, 1863, battle in which federal forces turned back a Rebel offensive into the North.
“I don’t understand why both historic entities (the battlefield and Cyclorama building) can’t be preserved,” Kay said. “But at this point, we don’t even know what a relocation would cost, or if it could be accomplished with private money.”
Klein said the park considered “many alternatives” to razing the Cyclorama — dubbed an “eyesore” and “oil drum” by Latschar over the years — when it developed its management plan.
Most of the court session was devoted to discussion about relocating the building, the definitions of “removal” versus “demolition,” the Park Service’s Environmental Impact Statement on the project, and the statute of limitations on challenging the demolition.
“The park’s plan spoke only in terms of removal. That term is not a synonym of demolition,” said Yost. “Removal means, simply, moving something again.”
Klein disagreed and also questioned whether the group’s lawsuit (filed in December 2006) is valid.
“The statute of limitations is the primary issue here. It started to run in 1999 when the park adopted its General Management Plan,” she said, noting the time limit for legal challenges on the decision expired in 2005. “They’re trying to say that they didn’t know that removal meant demolition. The plaintiffs waited seven years before they brought this lawsuit. This court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain this lawsuit.”
Judge Kay said he’d take Klein’s argument under consideration, when he writes his opinion and forwards it to Judge Hogan. Yost responded that his group launched its effort before the six-year window expired, by submitting a Freedom of Information Act request to the park, but received no response.
“There are two competing situations here: preservation of the battlefield and preservation of an historic building,” said Yost. “If the (National Environmental Policy Act assessment) were properly followed, we might be able to preserve both.”
Judge Kay replied: “Maybe a higher court will have to make that determination.”
Eric
Comment