The Debate about Land Preservation (Perryville)

[KyCavMajor]

I can not go along with this campaign to deprive the land owner of his his property rights. It is a tough decision for me, it would be easy to go along with my pards here, it really would.

But as much as I love pristine battlefields I have to play the devil's advocate. Which one of you would want a bunch of people telling you what you can do with your own property?
Why in the United States of America do we hve the right to tell this person he can not sell/develop his land as he sees fit? Was not a the Civil War in large part fought over such government interference?

The only equatable solution would be for some one, or a group of people to buy the property in question.

Remember when a neighbor objects to you cutting down a tree on your property, or painting your house a color they don't like, it is the same thing.

[amontalvo915]

Re: I got through to the Perryville City Council - did you?

This is a wee bit different than cutting down a tree or painting your house. This is destroying historical property, which although he does own, from what I understand nearly the whole county is on the historic register. Which means, he does not have the right to alter or develop it anymore. Just as a person who owns a house in Historic Gettysburg cannot sell it to Arbys.

[Micah Trent]

Re: I got through to the Perryville City Council - did you?

Why in the United States of America do we hve the right to tell this person he can not sell/develop his land as he sees fit? Was not a the Civil War in large part fought over such government interference?

Because in the United States of America, we have just the same right to voice our concern and opinions as the guy selling his property does!
"...it's all the same."

[JimConley]

Re: I got through to the Perryville City Council - did you?

Tod,
Wow! I never thought I would hear something so inane on this subject! I seriously have become nauseous.

...I'm trying to write a thought-out reply that doesn't drag out into my frustration right now, but I'll have to walk away and come back later.

It's in the mail

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: I got through to the Perryville City Council - did you?

Remember when a neighbor objects to you cutting down a tree on your property, or painting your house a color they don't like, it is the same thing.

Todd,

I understand your point, but I would ask you to rethink your position.

Yep, its the same. If you paint your house bright pink and conver it with pics of duckies and bunnies, your neighbors may object because it will directly impact their property values. It happens all the time. Many neighborhoods have convenance (sp?) and towns can have ordinances that direct the same sort of thing. As a homeowner, I support such "interference".

Such is the case with Perryville, but perhaps with a bit of a twist:
In this case, the development of the land doesn't impact the monetary value of the battlefield... it ain't for sale, so the question is moot. However, it DOES deprive folks of a resource, or impact it at the very least.

In this case, a developer wants to increase the value of land through development, then sell it for a profit. That's a fine endeavor and happens all the time. However, in this case (and many others) the land is adjacent to, or part of a significant battlefield. Once developed, the land, its archeological contents, its topography, and its interpretive value are irrecoverably lost.

In short: If your argument were accepted by the nation at-large, the CWPT might just as well close up shop.

Please have another look at this situation and give it some more thought. Ultimately, you have a right to your point of view, and I respect that. However, I think further examination of the situation and the impact of such development might persuade you to change your mind.

Very Respectfully Yours,

[Eric Tipton]

Re: I got through to the Perryville City Council - did you?

Posted this on Szabo's and thought I should re-post it here.

Quote:

The only solution I see is to pay the man for his property.

Tod:

I agree with this statement. I don't think anyone who wants to stop development at this site is against the owner getting his fair price. This is America and ownership is ownership.

What I was alluding to earlier was the difference between putting pressure on local government to stop an action as opposed to asking that government to TAKE something away. Yes, the owner should get their price, but no, I don't think that this effort to stop the type of development infringes on this owner's rights at all. This person has a piece of ground that he know full-well has historical significance and he is asking for a variance of it's current use. Happens every day in every type of locale.

If you bought property in a historic district, say in one of these small downtowns where re-development occurs, and you wanted to add to that property, there already standards in place for historic districts or any districts, for that matter, on a local level, and historic registries an a state and national level? On a local level, it must look a certain way, use particular materials, match color scheme's etc. Seen it alot. This person owns a piece of property that is adjacent to the battlefield and he has full knowledge of this fact. With that in mind, how is this situation different from the historic districts? You simply have an aesthetic issue in which the property owner is fully aware of the significance of their land.

I am vehemently opposed to local governments using emminent domain to take private property from an individual to give to another private individual. That, in my mind is wrong. But, to oppose a use of a property is extremely common and goes on every single day. In different zoning areas where variances have been requested, I have seen hospitals, car lots, retail centers, residential-to-business, etc, get shot down because of the type of use.

By the way, my profession is real estate development and if I were a developer in this case, I would not have bought the property in the first place, because of the very thing that is going on in opposition right now. The attorney fees and time spent chasing this could be better spent elsewhere - away from historic sites, unless the purpose is to build visitor centers, or other things that will enhance the historic value and tourism of the site.

Just my two cents as a Historian/Preservationist/Developer. (In that order)

Member of the "Been to Lots of Planning & Zoning/City Council Meetings Mess"

[KyCavMajor]

Re: I got through to the Perryville City Council - did you?

This is a wee bit different than cutting down a tree or painting your house. This is destroying historical property, which although he does own, from what I understand nearly the whole county is on the historic register. Which means, he does not have the right to alter or develop it anymore. Just as a person who owns a house in Historic Gettysburg cannot sell it to Arbys.

Santiago;
It is exactly the same. Just because it is our ox being gored doesn't make it right.
IF there were restrictions on the property WHEN HE BOUGHT IT then I would agree, and my point is moot. It would be great if this were the case.
But I do not agree to placing property on a historical register with out the owners consent.
I just think a great many of those that fought and died at Perryville would strenuously object to government confiscation of property, and that is in effect what is happening here. When you deny man the right to use his property as he sees fit, if you restrict it to what ever uses you decide it is suitable for, you do in fact de facto confiscate his property.
The person who legally owns the property has every right to make what ever profit he can from it. I would hope he would be sensitive to the historical importance of the area and not go ahead with his plans, but I believe this is the wrong way to go about it.
Where do we stop? As far as you can see from the hilltops? When you have the next hill top does it then extend to where you can see from it?

Now having said all that I hope a way to preserve the ground is found, but tis is the wrong way, confiscation by judicial fiat.Again, a huge part of me wishes I could support this effort in the way it is being done, but I can not in good conscience do it.

[KyCavMajor]

Posted this on Szabo's and thought I should re-post it here.

Quote:

The only solution I see is to pay the man for his property.

Tod:

I agree with this statement. I don't think anyone who wants to stop development at this site is against the owner getting his fair price. This is America and ownership is ownership.

What I was alluding to earlier was the difference between putting pressure on local government to stop an action as opposed to asking that government to TAKE something away. Yes, the owner should get their price, but no, I don't think that this effort to stop the type of development infringes on this owner's rights at all. This person has a piece of ground that he know full-well has historical significance and he is asking for a variance of it's current use. Happens every day in every type of locale.

If you bought property in a historic district, say in one of these small downtowns where re-development occurs, and you wanted to add to that property, there already standards in place for historic districts or any districts, for that matter, on a local level, and historic registries an a state and national level? On a local level, it must look a certain way, use particular materials, match color scheme's etc. Seen it a lot. This person owns a piece of property that is adjacent to the battlefield and he has full knowledge of this fact. With that in mind, how is this situation different from the historic districts? You simply have an aesthetic issue in which the property owner is fully aware of the significance of their land.

I am vehemently opposed to local governments using emminent domain to take private property from an individual to give to another private individual. That, in my mind is wrong. But, to oppose a use of a property is extremely common and goes on every single day. In different zoning areas where variances have been requested, I have seen hospitals, car lots, retail centers, residential-to-business, etc, get shot down because of the type of use.

By the way, my profession is real estate development and if I were a developer in this case, I would not have bought the property in the first place, because of the very thing that is going on in opposition right now. The attorney fees and time spent chasing this could be better spent elsewhere - away from historic sites, unless the purpose is to build visitor centers, or other things that will enhance the historic value and tourism of the site.

Just my two cents as a Historian/Preservationist/Developer. (In that order)

Member of the "Been to Lots of Planning & Zoning/City Council Meetings Mess"

Eric;
If indeed the current owner of the property bought it with deed restrictions then my point is moot. I do not think this was the case here, but I may be wrong. I truly hope I am in fact, I do not want to see the development!
How ever if this is not the case the mere presence of a historical place in the vicinity should not cause a person the right to profit from his property nor should it influence the local government in issue zoning variances over and above real local concerns such as the road infrastructure for example.
If the ground in question not being developed would actually increase the tourism dollar for the county, if it is actually worth more to lay fallow then the county should step up and buy it, it is a profitable purchase after all. In theory one should be able to issue bonds and pay them off with the profit then right?
One final question, you say you would not have bought this property to develop, did the land owner in question do that? If he did did he not research any deed restrictions? And what about families in that area that have owner those farms surrounding the park for generations, should they not be able to develop their own properties?
By the way, I appreciate and respect your reasoned response, this is not an easy quandary for me!

[KyCavMajor]

Re: I got through to the Perryville City Council - did you?

Todd,

I understand your point, but I would ask you to rethink your position.

Yep, its the same. If you paint your house bright pink and conver it with pics of duckies and bunnies, your neighbors may object because it will directly impact their property values. It happens all the time. Many neighborhoods have convenance (sp?) and towns can have ordinances that direct the same sort of thing. As a homeowner, I support such "interference". ,

John;
I will wrestle with this one for a long time, trust me...
I would agree if something was built next door to you, say a land fill that had run off onto your property. But just because we do not like another person's asthetic values, or lack there of, we have a right to tell them what they my or may not do with there property. I believe your rights stop at my property line. If you do not like the look of my house, build a privacy fence... ANd no I do not have a pink house... Iunderstand your support for such interference, we all like our home to be worth as much as possible, but where do we balance profit versus rights?

Such is the case with Perryville, but perhaps with a bit of a twist:
In this case, the development of the land doesn't impact the monetary value of the battlefield... it ain't for sale, so the question is moot. However, it DOES deprive folks of a resource, or impact it at the very least.

In this case, a developer wants to increase the value of land through development, then sell it for a profit. That's a fine endeavor and happens all the time. However, in this case (and many others) the land is adjacent to, or part of a significant battlefield. Once developed, the land, its archeological contents, its topography, and its interpretive value are irrecoverably lost.

In short: If your argument were accepted by the nation at-large, the CWPT might just as well close up shop.

Please have another look at this situation and give it some more thought. Ultimately, you have a right to your point of view, and I respect that. However, I think further examination of the situation and the impact of such development might persuade you to change your mind.

Very Respectfully Yours,

It is a tough moral decision for me, it really is. But I feel this country has gone to far in interfering with the property rights of it's citizens. The ground was private property BEFORE the battle and it is still private property. The only way I see to stop the encroachment is to buy the land, not take it by government fiat. Perhaps some sort of huge tax break for letting the land lay fallow?
I appreciate your reasoned arguements, I can see the thought and sentiment behind them is genuine, but I feel the threat to property owner is as well.

[yankeebelle]

Re: I got through to the Perryville City Council - did you?

Todd,


The biggest issue here is the fact that the owner of this land is the zoning commissioner. It is a great conflict of interest. If he wants to ask for a rezoning he needs to excuse himself and allow it to be decided without prejudice.

If someone who wasn't on the commission asked for the rezoning, I personally believe they would have a much harder time getting passed. However, if this rezoning happens it opens up access for many other people to come and ask for rezoning of their land and where does it stop then.


Beverly Simpson

[Fritz]

Re: I got through to the Perryville City Council - did you?

I fully believe in preservation, BUT. As a land owner, it's my right, within reason, to do what I want with my property. I wouldn't want every Tom, Dick & Harry from all over the country coming in and telling me what to do or not to do with my property. We live in the United States, not some communist country.

[Busterbuttonboy]

Re: I got through to the Perryville City Council - did you?

Mr. Jacobs

"I fully believe in preservation, BUT. As a land owner, it's my right, within reason, to do what I want with my property. I wouldn't want every Tom, Dick & Harry from all over the country coming in and telling me what to do or not to do with my property. We live in the United States, not some communist country."

This is why we do live in the United State, where rezoning are open to the public before comment, so that a single group of officials do not make arbitrary decisions. This is what we call a democracy. If you are unfamiliar with land use laws, easements, and the such which protect the battlefields and historic buildings which we all love then id suggest consulting the following links.

In general these might be nice readings for everyone to brush up on. I read them often to remind myself what is legal, how land regulations happen, etc. Our mobilization for Perryville has been amazing and is what we should be doing more often. It is our membership who has the weight to be able to help, its our duty as historians and more importantly its our right as citizens to participate in land use regulations.

American Battlefield Protection Program.

http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/abpp/index2.htm

National Trust For Historic Preservation

http://www.preservationnation.org/

Public Hearing Outlines.

http://www.mrsc.org/focuspub/hearings.aspx

Most Respectfully
Drew A. Gruber

[paulcalloway]

Re: The Debate about Land Preservation (Perryville)

This thread has been split off from the Perryville: Did you call? thread.

[Michael Comer]

Re: The Debate about Land Preservation (Perryville)

from what I understand nearly the whole county is on the historic register. Which means, he does not have the right to alter or develop it anymore

.

That's not correct if you are referring to the National Register of Historic Places. While there may be state and local restrictions, there are no Federal restrictions placed on the owner of such property.


While it would be nice for preservation if such listings had some 'teeth' to them, the statement about folks not being able to do anything with their property once it is placed on the register is a common misperception. To have a better understanding of just how such listings effects the land owner, one might peruse this link: http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/owners.htm

[Fritz]

Re: I got through to the Perryville City Council - did you?

Mr. Jacobs

"I fully believe in preservation, BUT. As a land owner, it's my right, within reason, to do what I want with my property. I wouldn't want every Tom, Dick & Harry from all over the country coming in and telling me what to do or not to do with my property. We live in the United States, not some communist country."

This is why we do live in the United State, where rezoning are open to the public before comment, so that a single group of officials do not make arbitrary decisions. This is what we call a democracy. If you are unfamiliar with land use laws, easements, and the such which protect the battlefields and historic buildings which we all love then id suggest consulting the following links.

In general these might be nice readings for everyone to brush up on. I read them often to remind myself what is legal, how land regulations happen, etc. Our mobilization for Perryville has been amazing and is what we should be doing more often. It is our membership who has the weight to be able to help, its our duty as historians and more importantly its our right as citizens to participate in land use regulations.

American Battlefield Protection Program.

http://www.nps.gov/history/hps/abpp/index2.htm

National Trust For Historic Preservation

http://www.preservationnation.org/

Public Hearing Outlines.

http://www.mrsc.org/focuspub/hearings.aspx

Most Respectfully
Drew A. Gruber

Yes, we have planning and zoning at the LOCAL level, NOT from the federal government. Let's let the locals handle it, not at the national level, If you owned the historic Twin Dufus Farm in Podunck Juction and wanted to build a new house on it, and have local approval, do you want every one to run to your planning and zoning to do what you want?? Yes I believe in preservation, but if we go too far, places like the State of Virginia would be one mass monument, with all the Rev War and ACW battles that were fought there.

My point is, individual rights. Must we give up our rights to suit everyone else??