The Debate about Land Preservation (Perryville)

[Federal Bummer]

Re: The Debate about Land Preservation (Perryville)

This reminds me of the Morris Island public debate three years age ( I know I can believe its been that long since we braved Charleston Harbor in boats).

I can see both points on this arguement and I believe we'll see them until everything is officially a city or a park. I have to go with the P.B.P.A. on this one. I like to keep in mind that I'll only be here for a little while and I consider my duty to future is more important than any finacial gain I may get while I'm alive. I can't take it with me when I leave. This is my opinion and I realize others may vary which is why america is such a great place. Normally I like to to compramise but this time I see that is not possible. Therefor I will continue to voice my opinion to protect the land and people will object but I'll continue to fight on, because there is always a land battle to be fought; either on it or about it.

[Johnny Lloyd]

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

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??

I lived in Germany for 3 years when I was in the Army, and they have the opposite problem. If the DON'T carefully legislate where and when modern building goes on, then they will completely lose all of their forests and not to mention famous battlefields.

ALL of Europe is a battlefield if you think of it, much like Virginia, and that requires careful land planning/usage by the German Federal/State/Local government. Also, they have to frequently put their battlefields that need preserving in order to see which are the most important and most endangered. So why not everyone be in the loop about what needs to be done?

I have no problem if the owner of a piece of land wants to build a public building/private dwelling on his land that he owns. But when a burger joint or worse gets plopped-down on a known battlefield that can be saved from further development, then the public good should win over private gain.

Look, I'm all for "individual rights" and "private property ownership"... but when individual rights comes in conflict with our common public well-being and that of our future generations, then common well-being should win out.

Money isn't everything- especially when it comes to preservation of our quickly-dwindling American Heritage everywhere.

Thanks- Johnny Lloyd

[JimConley]

Re: The Debate about Land Preservation (Perryville)

Tod,
First, it's not just as simple as the owner's right to sell or not sell. As John Wickett pointed out, there are restrictions and procedures that overlook such actions as this because it not only affects the property owner, but the entire surrounding community. Also, those of us all across the country that have called and e-mailed to voice opposition to development have not done so with the intent of infringing upon personal property rights, rather to let the entire city and community of Perryville know that we care about the historical significance of that great place. It is the city of Perryville that will be voting on this issue because it not only concerns the owner and prospective buyers, but it concerns the future of the entire town. And that is one of the most important details of this issue.

Do I think that growth is a good thing? Yes, I do. But, it is also important that growth, no matter where it occurs, is well planned and the future is taken into serious consideration. And by the future I don't mean revenue drawn in the next five or ten years, but how will it affect the area in the next twenty or thirty years. It cannot be just about now and the few subsequent years. The future of towns, young people, and their children's children need to be thought of as well. And that is why it is ultimately up to the local officials to be the voice of reason and echo what is best for the community overall. And that is also why so many people have, and will voice, opposition to things like this that threaten our historic grounds because it is not just about us, but it's about the future and the character of America and its past. That is something that is bigger than you, it's bigger than me, and it's bigger than a land owner.

But, because you are right, it is within his power to sell, is the very reason why people must think about it and voice their positions on the matter because of it's affect upon the community, its people, and its visitors.

I urge you to re-read what John Wickett said and take a few minutes to look at what the Grubester linked above. Bottom line, it is not just as easy as a buyer and seller.

Hypothetically, say the owner does sell and the land is developed. Do you think it will stop there? No! Because planning and development has not been as carefully handled as it should be, towns all over the country, historic significance or not, have been ruined by the spread of development. This stuff spreads like cancer because people don't care enough to take the time to learn the issues and voice their positions on them. What will be unique about one town versus another in twenty years if every place has a McDonald's and a Wal-Mart, seven gas stations, and suburban cookie-cutter houses surrounding?

And because Perryville does have such a strong significance to the Kentucky history and American history, the issue does become that much more important, and yes, it concerns all of us. Wrestle with the subject as much as you like, but the matter is hardly as black and white as you have drawn up.

And what about the people that have ancestors that fought and died on those fields? Do they not have a right to learn about and appreciate their ancestor's memories and legacies? Or what about school kids learning about American history, taking field trips to battlefields and historic sites? That, to me, is far greater than any revenue driving development plan.

I think that you will have a completely different outlook if within a few years you and your group are out at Perryville staring at someone cook burgers and hot dogs on their deck sitting on a 1/4 acre plot of American history.

[Busterbuttonboy]

Re: The Debate about Land Preservation (Perryville)

Fellers
I am going to jump on back out of this. However if there is one more thing i can post which may reinforce the need for public involvement especially on the local level it would be this link....

http://www.civilwar.org/fdacslideshow/index.htm

For those of you unsure about participating or wary that you may be trampling the rights of your neighbor; it may be time to understand that a single unchecked rezoning or undefined development is a precedent.

Erik Mink posted this earlier this week and apparently we all didn’t take notice.
Again,

http://www.civilwar.org/fdacslideshow/index.htm

Hardcore, progressive, mainstream or spectator, we are all citizens and we all love history. We have been given tools but the government to preserve these things. USE THEM, or quiet down. Im with Jim, the fact that we are even questioning this boggles my mind.

Most Respectfully
Drew Gruber

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: The Debate about Land Preservation (Perryville)

Do I think that growth is a good thing? Yes, I do. But, it is also important that growth, no matter where it occurs, is well planned and the future is taken into serious consideration. And by the future I don't mean revenue drawn in the next five or ten years, but how will it affect the area in the next twenty or thirty years. It cannot be just about now and the few subsequent years.

There are some very good points here. I think that the preservation battles bring to light other concerns about current urban/suburban planning in the US. Today, suburbs grow quickly out from the center of cities to outlying rural areas. Large shopping centers and housing additions are connected to each other and the city-center by large 4, 5, and 6+ lane roads. All of this happens in an environment of cheap gas and available land.

I wonder what will happen when gas prices hit $5, $8, or $10 per gallon. Will the middle class families living in the suburbs 20-70 miles from work find themselves suddenly unable to afford the suburban lifestyle? Will we see these glorious new developments become a blight? Then, to Jim's point, look at the true cost of the development of battlefield land, versus the gain.

[Busterbuttonboy]

Re: The Debate about Land Preservation (Perryville)

Well i thought id stay out of it but John Wickett made me think...

These numbers are from an older Loudoun County Virginia Survey, showing the costs a municipality pays in utilities and services. And then reflect the amount of net the County makes back from each. (although it does not say per acre, etc.) Boge- Paving Over the Past.

Required County-Government Expenditures
Residential Sector $1,234
Industrial/Commercial $304
Agricultural Sector $49

Net to County
Residential Sector -$234
Industrial/Comm $696
Agricultural $951

Just a short chart and example. There are a ton of sources that break down the cost/benefit factors of development vs battlefield preservation.

Further reading:
Dollars and Sense of Battlefield Preservation. Frances H. Kennedy.

Paving Over the Past. Georgie and Margie Boge.

Us Congress. Senate Committee on Energy and National Resources. Antietam National Battlefield. 100th Cong. 2d Sess. 1988.

Presidents Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. A Plan to Preserve the Historic resources of the Gettysburg Area. Govt Printing office, 1977.

Most Respectfully
Drew Gruber

[KyCavMajor]

Re: The Debate about Land Preservation (Perryville)

Tod,
First, it's not just as simple as the owner's right to sell or not sell. As John Wickett pointed out, there are restrictions and procedures that overlook such actions as this because it not only affects the property owner, but the entire surrounding community. Also, those of us all across the country that have called and e-mailed to voice opposition to development have not done so with the intent of infringing upon personal property rights, rather to let the entire city and community of Perryville know that we care about the historical significance of that great place. It is the city of Perryville that will be voting on this issue because it not only concerns the owner and prospective buyers, but it concerns the future of the entire town. And that is one of the most important details of this issue.

Do I think that growth is a good thing? Yes, I do. But, it is also important that growth, no matter where it occurs, is well planned and the future is taken into serious consideration. And by the future I don't mean revenue drawn in the next five or ten years, but how will it affect the area in the next twenty or thirty years. It cannot be just about now and the few subsequent years. The future of towns, young people, and their children's children need to be thought of as well. And that is why it is ultimately up to the local officials to be the voice of reason and echo what is best for the community overall. And that is also why so many people have, and will voice, opposition to things like this that threaten our historic grounds because it is not just about us, but it's about the future and the character of America and its past. That is something that is bigger than you, it's bigger than me, and it's bigger than a land owner.

But, because you are right, it is within his power to sell, is the very reason why people must think about it and voice their positions on the matter because of it's affect upon the community, its people, and its visitors.

I urge you to re-read what John Wickett said and take a few minutes to look at what the Grubester linked above. Bottom line, it is not just as easy as a buyer and seller.

Hypothetically, say the owner does sell and the land is developed. Do you think it will stop there? No! Because planning and development has not been as carefully handled as it should be, towns all over the country, historic significance or not, have been ruined by the spread of development. This stuff spreads like cancer because people don't care enough to take the time to learn the issues and voice their positions on them. What will be unique about one town versus another in twenty years if every place has a McDonald's and a Wal-Mart, seven gas stations, and suburban cookie-cutter houses surrounding?

And because Perryville does have such a strong significance to the Kentucky history and American history, the issue does become that much more important, and yes, it concerns all of us. Wrestle with the subject as much as you like, but the matter is hardly as black and white as you have drawn up.

And what about the people that have ancestors that fought and died on those fields? Do they not have a right to learn about and appreciate their ancestor's memories and legacies? Or what about school kids learning about American history, taking field trips to battlefields and historic sites? That, to me, is far greater than any revenue driving development plan.

I think that you will have a completely different outlook if within a few years you and your group are out at Perryville staring at someone cook burgers and hot dogs on their deck sitting on a 1/4 acre plot of American history.

A few points here
Where exactly would you stop developing in the vicinity of a battlefield? Is a mile radius enough? Two miles? Ten miles? As far as you can see with the naked eye from the highest point on the field? Or with field glasses? The entire county is history rich...
Is every square inch of route used by armies on their way to the battle taboo to change? Forever? Is every property owner in the area forbidden to use or build as they see fit? Where is the line to be drawn and by whom? "Sorry, you can't have a garage or car port... We don't like the way you mow your grass since we can see it from the battlefield..."
Which is likely more beneficial to a community, an empty field or a tax paying development?
Why would these homes be more detrimental than the hundreds that already dot the area?
If this particular parcel is so important as to deny an American citizen the right to make a profit on his legally owned property then another way could be devised to purchase it from him other than de-facto confiscation.

And finally, I expect were you to ask any vet of any of our wars, they would likely tell you they fought so you could enjoy a burger or hot dog on your 1/4 acre piece of America. what we may regard as sprawl many, probably most, regard as their piece of the pie.

I would truly love to see the development around battlefields stopped, ALL battlefields, but not at the expense of the citizens around it. It just does not feel right to me to deny a property owner the right to his part of the American dream. I have been to Bunker/Breed's Hill in Boston, I have seen Franklin TN, I have dined I at restaurant in Atlanta on a forgotten, paved over battlefield and I mourn the lost history under the asphalt. I wish they could all have been saved. I am sure they would all love to have as much as Perryville still has, but still I would not deny one property owner their rights to save a foot of it.

I suppose to to me the ACTIONS of those men who fought there is more important than the geography. Each and every one at some level believed he was fighting for HIS rights, to use that to deny the rights of others... Well that is the internal moral issue I face.

If it does not bother you, then I wish you God Speed. I would wish, I would pray in fact, that this out cry changes the land owners heart and he makes the land available for purchase to the park instead.

[Perryville Julie]

Re: The Debate about Land Preservation (Perryville)

Gentlemen, Ladies:

I am the Vice Mayor of Perryville and have lived in Boyle County most of my life. Our decision tonight to reject the zoning ordinance by a 4-1 vote was based on the plan presented to us. In no way did we plan to deprive Mr. Coyle of his right to "do with his property whatever he wants" - we rejected the proposed plan as it stood. We have planning and zoning in our county to help minimize conflicts of this nature, and this will come up again. If anything, it has certainly stimulated all sorts of discussion on how to manage inevitable growth surrounding our precious resource.

Here are my reasons, based upon the public recorded testimony:

The sole reason presented for the zone change was a Dollar Store across the road made the current zoning inappropriate as an agricultural zone. (The rezoning proposal would have created a commercial, multi-family residential and residential development.)

Evidence presented at the public zoning hearings focused on that reason alone to create a development that would serve the future projected growth of Perryville for the next 90 years.

The zoning area along US 150, a highway commercial plan, is in direct conflict with our county's Comprehensive Plan, which urges the use of existing commercial property clustered downtown. It is, however, the part of the development I was most comfortable with. I was much more concerned with the back portion and its impact on the viewsheds and infrastructure.

The street plan for the housing section was not in a grid and would have dumped two-thirds of the traffic from the subdivision onto a small, country road surrounding the battlefield.

Neighbors opposed it, loudly, as did many preservationists. But fundamentally, it ran against a Comprehensive Plan adopted in October of 2007 by the Planning and Zoning commision, of which the owner is a member and former chairman, and adopted and approved by each legislative body in our county.

In no way do we expect to "land grab" without compensation to the owner. He has worked very hard to ensure the best use of this land in the proposed development and to preserve the historic road corridor running through it through many sources.

Which brings me to my final point: Locals feel everyone cares about Perryville to our detriment. Our city operates on an extremely tight budget, we are hampered by our state's constitution on generating our own revenue. We, the people of Perryville, do not gain anything from visitors to the battlefield. Yet, we are told we are a national treasure to be respected and restricted without garnering any revenue or benefit from it.

Careful, thoughtful growth that respects us and those that laid down their lives at Perryville is everyone's goal. This particular packet of projects did not meet that standard.

Thank you all for your concerns. Please help us preserve Perryville and help it prosper.

Respectfully,
Julie Clay

[Milliron]

Re: The Debate about Land Preservation (Perryville)

I applaud your decision, Ms. Clay, even if it was not for the reasons proposed by the people here.

Which brings me to my final point: Locals feel everyone cares about Perryville to our detriment. Our city operates on an extremely tight budget, we are hampered by our state's constitution on generating our own revenue. We, the people of Perryville, do not gain anything from visitors to the battlefield. Yet, we are told we are a national treasure to be respected and restricted without garnering any revenue or benefit from it.

I am sure this consideration is well understood by all the members here. Without speaking for any person other than myself, would it be possible for members of this (the AC) community to involve themselves in a way that might generate revenue for the city of Perryville? I think everyone here is willing to be part of the solution to the problem rather than the problem itself. If preservation of the battlefield is our ultimate goal, then I doubt too many people would object to participating in something which would bring tourism dollars to the region. Perhaps then the city would not be so tempted to develop the encroaching parcel?

[Justin Runyon]

Re: The Debate about Land Preservation (Perryville)

Though under the commonwealths odd city charters (at least so I gather) the direct revenue from the Perryville Battlefield may not go directly to the city, some degree of benefit must exist for Perryville with regard to battlefield tourism. I would venture a guess that without the battlefield, a statistically smaller number of people would be buying the gas, food, and other products and services offered by Perryville businesses.

Battlefield tourism is usually beneficial to all, one way or another.

[JimConley]

Re: The Debate about Land Preservation (Perryville)

And finally, I expect were you to ask any vet of any of our wars, they would likely tell you they fought so you could enjoy a burger or hot dog on your 1/4 acre piece of America. what we may regard as sprawl many, probably most, regard as their piece of the pie.

Tod,
Those are not points at all, rather I think you completely misunderstood what I was saying or approached what I said in quite a condescending manner.

Particularly, I would like to address these couple lines quoted above. As Ms. Clay stated, no intent was to deny the land owner of anything fair pertaining to his property. Also, I do not think that what we were voicing or the decision made tonight by the Perryville City Council denied anyone their "piece of the pie." As for your other comments, you plainly did not understand what I was trying to get across, and by this point I fear you may never.

I agree with you that veterans would say they did what they did as defenders of the American dream and prosper for everyone in our great nation. However, I do think they would take serious offense to people that would allow obstruction of their actions and their legacies in any manner because of their bravery and sacrifices. It would be as if you were slapping them in the face! We have war veterans and people in Iraq on these boards now and I would love to hear what their opinions would be of your casual approach to development that threatens our history.

You are entitled to your opinions, and as much as I disagree, I must respect that. However, you, sir, seem to me to be thick-headed and stubborn as an ox, which are not traits to necessarily be proud of. I hope that the next time you are riding around the hills at Perryville that you can take a minute to appreciate what happened there and how much of a treasure it really is. I'm afraid, sadly, that you are one of those people that will not truly appreciate something until it is gone.

Julie,
As Bob said above, I'm sure there are many of us that would like to know how we can continue to help Perryville in the future and protect its physical history. I would urge you, Joni, Chad, Curt, Chris, and all others associated with Perryville to call upon us to help in any way that we can. I am very very happy to hear of the good news from this evening's meeting and wish to know how I can contribute in the future.

[paulcalloway]

Re: The Debate about Land Preservation (Perryville)

Individual interests are never going to be able to match the financial backing of corporate interests and/or land developers. I think the arguement that if you oppose the development of battlefield land, then you should buy the land ignores this simple principle.

That is why we have zoning commisions and laws. The citizens of Perryville, preservationists and other interested parties should be free, within the law, to voice their opposition to development - using the recourses provided to them under the law including their right to free speach.

You don't get to Perryville, Kentucky on accident - no one in the last 140 years has wandered into Perryville and accidentally spent four days touring the town and NOT the battlefield.

Last year the battlefield brought 100,000 visitors to Perryville. Those people eat, buy gas, stay at hotels, shop, get speeding tickets and donate. Thats a lot of income for both the city and the county.

I've spent time in that little town and they have a natural resource there that brings a lot of tourism to that community. A housing development may not still be supporting its infrastructure in 40 years, let alone bringing in substantive income for the City and the County. The battlefield however will continue to pay the bills decades from now - just on that fact alone, I believe Perryville would be mistaken to develop this property adjacent to the battlefield. And I believe the Perryville City Council is right to vote no on this rezoning proposal.

[Dignann]

Re: The Debate about Land Preservation (Perryville)

I am pleased to see that the rezoning request was denied and thus the battlefield boundaries protected, for now. Zoning laws, however, are very poor preservation tools. They do little to protect land or resources. I fear that until some other means of protection is implemented, fee simple acquisition or easement, that this issue will not remain down. I'm curious what the byright allowances are for development on this property under the current zoning. Zoning laws and ordinances can always change, and usually do.

Eric

[csabugler]

Re: The Debate about Land Preservation (Perryville)

This is very good news. We don't win many of these
Playing Devil's advocate here, do we now put our collective money where our mouths are and support an event at the park with a demonstative authentic presence?
I've been to 5 over the years.
If this is a taboo topic or needs moved, kill it or move it at your discretion

[Perryville Julie]

Re: The Debate about Land Preservation (Perryville)

Thanks to all of you for supporting us over the years. We would not be the tourism draw we are today without all of your contributions to the battlefield and living history programs.

I know Chad is planning a dedication at our recently rebuilt cave downtown, which watered many a wounded soldier after the battle and its spring was the very foundation spot of Harberson's Station, later to be incorporated as Perryville. (It's also right next door to my house) Perhaps that would be a good venue to highlight town in the immediate future?

Again, thanks for the support. It was a hard decision to make for all of us.

Julie