The Debate about Land Preservation (Perryville)

[Bob 125th NYSVI]

Re: The Debate about Land Preservation (Perryville)

Tod:

They can burn you and me at the stake together because I'm with you on this one.

I suspect that those who are supporting the 'preservation' are doing so out of their love for History and the Civil War but also out of ignorance of how insidious and pervasive this sort of thing has become.

I live in an area where people are constantly trying to stop other people from using their land as they see fit with the boundries of the law (and folks zoning laws are GUIDELINES not abbatized entrenchments).

We have had to pass right to farm laws because city folk are moving in and trying to tell farmers when they can and can not farm (ruins their Sunday Mornings on the patio with coffee and NYT) or even what products they can and can not produce. And then what they ARE allowed to do to produce them.

Recently had someone up the block from me (figuratively speaking) try to prevent the land owner next door from putting up a small house and her breeding/boarding kennel (her life long dream) because the house and facility would 'ruin his view' and he could 'hear her dogs barking which was distrubing his peace and quite' (as an aside we can here the train rumble through the valley five miles away it is that quiet up here). $17k and TWO court rulings later she was finally allowed to do was her legal right to do.

If it was the battleground itself, maybe or maybe even next to it. But a MILE away.

Folks don't realize that once they open up the gates on this one they could be next. And oh sure they laugh it won't happen to me. I live in a suburb or not near a historical site.

Well ask those people up in CT who had their HOMES seized by the government what their before and after feelings were.

Why were their homes seized? To put up a school? A Highway? To preserve the historical beach front?

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The land was seized so the government could SELL it to a developer so that he could put up expensive townhomes and retail/office space to BENEFIT the tax base.

But people don't learn until it is their turn in the sights.

But then by then it is too late isn't it?

[Bob 125th NYSVI]

Re: The Debate about Land Preservation (Perryville)

I guess my Question for Julie is why does one side of the road qualify (the side the dollar store sits on) as non-intrusive to the battlefield and the other side does?

Or was the request for rezoning rejected because the plan did not meet the development requirements to be rezoned?

Sorry but from a distance, having one side of a road rezoned but not the other looks like local political connections verses none. Happens all the time up here.

You're connected you get what you want, you aren't you don't. Until a new development board is elected.

[Eric Tipton]

Re: The Debate about Land Preservation (Perryville)

The land was seized so the government could SELL it to a developer so that he could put up expensive townhomes and retail/office space to BENEFIT the tax base.

Bob:

Once again, this issue in Perryville is not the same as the government seizing the land for another's personal use. What you are talking about is the misuse of eminent domain by local municipalities. They are doing this by "condemning" neighborhoods that they say are "blighted", but in most cases are not. By the way, as a developer, I am as opposed (and appauled) as you are about what I perceive is the removal of the property owners rights throught the use of eminent domain.

There was an eminent domain case like this here in Cincinnati where a developer (competitor of ours) worked with the City of Norwood to have a neighborhood condemned, so they could build a mixed-use development. The owners were basically forced to sell, which all did, except for one single owner, who to this date has still not sold. Good for him. He has the right as an owner to decide whether or not to sell. This became one of the landmark cases for the recent abuses of eminent domain. I believe it was also featured on 60 Minutes once.

Here is a link to an article about this case:

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050521/NEWS01/505210418

The issue at Perryville is a zoning issue, which exists in every level and strata of land ownership in every municipality in the United States. How a property is zoned is determined by the local government. Hearings (like the one at Perryville) are held if variances are requested. For example, if a particular piece of land is zoned "B-2" (business use) and the owner wants to build houses, they request a variance to get it zoned to "R-1". A hearing is held to see if there are any objections and a vote is taken with the board to decide if the variance should be granted or voted down. This is and has been done like this for decades and decades and has little to do with a government "taking land" or depriving an owner of their ownership rights.

The owner in the case of Perryville is requesting a variance and it is perfectly standard practice to deny a variance if it clashes with uses adjacent to the property. For example, if someone wanted to build a jail right next door without consulting you, would you be upset about it? Of course you would. Your property values would decrease and it would affect you directly. What about YOUR property rights in that case? That is why zoning exists - to keep someone from negatively affecting their neighbors and to prevent "hodge-podge" development where wildly different uses of land exist together. Take a look at some of the development that was done in neighborhoods built in the 1960's and 70's when zoning was relaxed. I have seen gaudy signage, industrial next to residential next to retail with no rhyme or reason. THAT is why zoning codes exist, and it is a good thing.

I understand your stance about individual property owners rights and the misuse of emminent domain, and happen to agree with you - completely. However, the current zoning issue in Perryville is NOT an eminent domain case and shouldn't be portrayed as if it is. If you think that the property owner should be granted a variance based on the merits, then that is your opinion and onviously you are entitled to it, as is everyone else is. I think that the re-zoning request shouldn't be granted, because it is a detriment to an adjacent property owner, who happens to be a battlefield which is a tourist draw for the town. Developments, in this case, is short-sighted and inappropriate (IMO) in this particular case.

[DougCooper]

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

Well said Eric, and exactly right.

[Micah Trent]

Re: The Debate about Land Preservation (Perryville)

I suspect that those who are supporting the 'preservation' are doing so out of their love for History and the Civil War but also out of ignorance of how insidious and pervasive this sort of thing has become.

Quick to judge everyone here are we Bob?

I understand where you are coming from and how you feel. However, I do know what it is like to have land and try to rezone it only to have people disagree with it, because there was some family ties to the place. In the end I was not able to get accomplished what I was hoping for, but I didn't make a big scene out if. I understood where those familes were coming from. Did I think they were ignorant?...Nope. The only ignorance would been from me bashing them for their views and opinions. To this day I am still bummed about, but it's life. I've moved on and accepted it. No hard feelings.

Here, the people are sharing their views and opinions on what they think shouldn't be done. I see no ignorance in that. But if you do, I guess then over 90% of us here on the AC form are ignorant.

[Bob 125th NYSVI]

Quick to judge everyone here are we Bob?

Here, the people are sharing their views and opinions on what they think shouldn't be done. I see no ignorance in that. But if you do, I guess then over 90% of us here on the AC form are ignorant.

Did you actually have your land seized?

Did you have to go to court TWICE to get rulings to get those people off your back? At the cost of $17k?

Was someone trying to prevent you for building your HOME on a legally zoned piece of property?

The two cases aren't even CLOSE don't try to pretend they are.

I've been involved in zoning disputes too. If the land was in a agricultural zone and somebody wanted to make it commercial you'd have a stronger argument.

But the land we are talking about here IS ACROSS THE STREET from a commercial zone AS admitted to by Julie. LAND already occupied by a commercial store.

When someone comes to SEIZE your land, you can tell me how close the two cases are. And YES my family lost some very valuable land seized by the government (and was nowhere near compensated for the commercial OR residential value of the property) after being in the family for almost 60 years because new comers to the local decided what they thought was best for them was best for everybody and they were rich.

And being ignorant on an issue from lack of experience DOES NOT equate to being an IGNORANT person. You made that comparison I didn't.

[Micah Trent]

Re: The Debate about Land Preservation (Perryville)

The two cases aren't even CLOSE don't try to pretend they are.

And being ignorant on an issue from lack of experience DOES NOT equate to being an IGNORANT person. You made that comparison I didn't.

Somebody's a little ill.
I didn't know I was pretending? I was just trying to make a point...guess not.
Sorry for 'MISREADING' what you typed. Some things come off different then intended. This isn't that other forum site so:

Let's move on and get back on topic!

[KyCavMajor]

Re: The Debate about Land Preservation (Perryville)

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. .

There was no condescending manner" intended or implied

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.
.

That decision did in fact deny the land owner the right to earn a piece of the pie. It was made on different grounds than the fact you could see it from the battlefield. Perhaps they are legitimate, and certainly more legitimate than some one not wanting their view spoiled as they see it.

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.

Truth be told, the view is for YOUR, and my enjoyment, the veterans who fought there are past enjoying it. Their legacy is not in the acreage, it is in the deeds. I would expect some vets to disagree with both our points of view, but the men fought there were not fighting to keep people from improving their lives on property they legally own.
Slapping them in the face would be saying your sacrifice was in vain because after all you did, your descendants don't have the right to develop the farm you left them because somebody's view is obstructed.
I expect a thinking vet would more question your casual approach to another man's property. Our history is not endangered by the development, it is endangered by our educational system.

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.

I never said it would be a great thing for this development to be built, I would hate to see it as much as anyone! Have you ever done a work day a Perryville? I have... I tore up a shoulder pulling fence post and throwing them onto a truck.
I travel a LOT for business, you name a battlefield I have likely been there, I have seen the ravages of development from the Wilderness to Glorietta Pass and it breaks my heart. But I would not deny a single land owner the right to his property to save a square foot of them.
I may be thick headed in regards to a person's property rights, so be it. I hope some day some one is as thick headed in support of when they are telling you what color to paint your home, or what stone to use in your driveway.
Think it can't or won't happen to you? I got a ticket once in the 80's for having a car in my driveway without a license plate.It was a custom race/show car that had a 10K paint job on it. Forty thousand dollars would not have bought that car, far in excess of the Mercedes across the street, but they came on my property and gave me a ticket.
Remember when some one denies YOU the right to use your own ground. I stand on my principles with a clear conscious.

[Emmanuel Dabney]

Re: The Debate about Land Preservation (Perryville)

Well, I'll be short but having studied this topic over and over again in 2.5 years, I agree with the Perryville folks, not solely on the basis of battlefield preservation but rather the comprehensive plan was cited as being a primary reason why it was voted down.

If you want to see things protected and if you also want economic growth, a beginning level is for YOUR (the public) involvement with YOUR community's comprehensive plan. Each state has their own time tables for how often they must be reviewed. In Virginia, it is every 5 years and localities will update them as required. It appears in my quick Googling that Kentucky requires the same review cycle.

A sampling of some other states based on the CWPT's list of endangered battlefields for 2008:

1. Florida--Every 7 years
2. Maryland--Every 6 years
3. Pennsylvania--Every 10 years
4. Georgia--Every 10 years

I don't know what the record is in Kentucky localities for comprehensive plans to have the "teeth" shut on projects that are not in line with the comp plan but in this case, it was not and that was enforced. Rare as this is, it's not just a victory for saving views of the battlefield, etc. but rather a victory for the action of local government to do as they have been instructed from their comprehensive plan, which everyone in Perryville is welcome to come out and provide their two cents (or more if they have it) when the locality updates their plan.

[lukegilly13]

Re: The Debate about Land Preservation (Perryville)

I can see both sides....literally! I live extremely close to a National Park. I have family that works there. I volunteer there almost once a week. I live where three states come together. My little town is growing FAST! Why? Because the local university PROSPERS! How come you might ask? Because the law says (generally speaking) that you cannot build ANYTHING (including a cell phone tower) modern or an "eyescare" that can be viewed from the national park! That being said, the national park includes the highest point in the tri state region. Not much you do cannot be viewed from up there. Therefore, the University is considerate and builds period-like structures and at least attempts to hide the parking lots from the park view. They work with the park, not against it. I work in the 5th highest wellfare community in the nation. It also borders the national park on the other side. The small city on the highway that runs through the park (or actually under it) thrives because of tourism. Do I think the community could prosper by more development? Sure! Would it balance out the the lack of tourism that it would cost? Probably not! As I said before, I can see both sides. In fact, I feel that all of my ancestors fought for just this reason (that the federal government had no right to tell them what they could do with what was theres...mostly tobacco farms). However, some of them died as a sacrifice for the good of their pards. I bought my place knowing this law. I have no argument. If this man in Perryville bought his property knowing this conflic exists.....I do not feel sorry for him. If he did not, I still don't feel sorry for him. He literally owns history.... all of us would like to be in his shoes from that perspective. Let him utilize the law to work in his advantage. Let him develop his land to enhance the view from the park...not destroy it. People who live near parks become the park. If you don't....you get your feelings hurt. This discussion we are in is what cause President Lincoln to age so much during the war. He knew in his heart that he must stop secession....but in his legal mind, he could NEVER justify it. Lincoln's bout was with undevelopment....ours is with development.
To sum up my point....I know what he's going through. But this war has already been fought...it's the passion of its causes that we have this website and our hobby. The owner has two choices as history looks on....he can learn to work with the nation who has passed a law in interest of the entire community and its visitors...or he can seceed from the union (in jest but to add clarity).

Tod, I applaud your courage. It takes guts to argue against popular opinion. I think in this case both sides are correct. I think he should have the right to develop...but, i think he should have to do it within the guidelines set by his community. Our difference is that with the Civil War, secessionists were angered because laws were passed after the fact or at least currently. This is a pre-existing law that he must now work with.

[KyCavMajor]

Re: The Debate about Land Preservation (Perryville)

Well said Luke. I wish every property owner could be convinced to do the right thing, at least from or point of view, but it is hard for me to deny him the usage of his ground because we don't like what we might see.
If the varience was denied for infrastructure reasons that is a whole nother arguement.

Your stubborn thick headed pard

[Poor Private]

Re: The Debate about Land Preservation (Perryville)

I must jump on Todds, and Bob's wagon.
A man has the right to do with his property as he choses as long as it is within the law.
this is what zoning boards are for, to decide what can and cannot be done.
Where I live a small group of people who missed the town life tried to incorporate over 50 square miles into a town so that they could have municiple service. This area included many dairy farm, cropland farms, small truck farms, and lots of animal hunting ground. The farmed land occupies 75% of the land. My wife and I own a sheep/goat farm in this area. we hunt on our own land, we harvest our own wood. We have our own firing range. All this would have had to be stopped as well as any other farming, hunting in the area because it would become part of the municipality. It would have crossed county, and township lines. Those of us affected got together to fight this and won (for the present) at a high financial cost. I resent other people who have no direct decision in my county, and township, coming to my house to tell me what I can and cannot do to my property. If you want to decide what I can and cannot do to my property buy it from me and or purchase property in my township, and county and become a part of the VOTING community who decides.
When I wish for a change in my propertys' status I take it to my zoning board, and expect a decision wether my way or the townships way, without outsiders interference. Am I abit jaded-you bet. My family has been on this ground for over 5 generations and my next door neighbors for over 3.
Now the way I feel is that if this gentlemans property is not an actual part of the battle field he has the right to develop his property as he choses and as decided by the local zoning board. I believe in preservation of our heritage, and will and do support it.
If you or anyone do not wish for this land to become developed step forward with your cahs and buy it. In other words put your money where your mouth is.

[Mike Willey]

Re: The Debate about Land Preservation (Perryville)

This has been one of the more interesting threads on this website. Certainly there is a fine line between preserving our past and the rights of the land owner.

Let me pose a question to KyCav and his supporters:

I live in a Federal-style house, built in 1830. My wife and I are working on restoring the home and property within a historic district. A small vacant lot behind our house is owned by someone who has not paid taxes on it for years, and has moved to England. Further research by myself shows that he owns several such vacant lots, all around our city, all of which are considerably behind on taxes.

We want to purchase the lot behind us, but have no way of contacting the owner. The taxes owed exceeds the monetary value of the property.

Would it not be appropriate for the local government to seize said lots as abandoned properties? And if so, would you say that there are times when it is appropriate for local governments to step in?

I actually agree with much of what you say; and in an ideal world people would care about their collective history and none of this would be an issue.....but at the same time, sprawl is a blight upon our land. There are times when it needs to be contained.


Mike Willey
late of the 49th Ohio and Coffee-coolers

[Poor Private]

Re: The Debate about Land Preservation (Perryville)

In my neck of the woods yearly back taxes are auctioned off once a year . You have to have the luck and funds to purchase several years of taxes to get a free and clear title of the property I believe it is 3 years of taxes( I may be wrong). In the meantime the current owner can pay you back with interest the back taxes to maintain thier right to the property. But your best bet would be to contact a property/land lawyer who knows the law regarding back taxes and legal right to ownership in your state.

[lukegilly13]

Re: The Debate about Land Preservation (Perryville)

[QUOTE=Mike Willey;102130]This has been one of the more interesting threads on this website. Certainly there is a fine line between preserving our past and the rights of the land owner.

Would it not be appropriate for the local government to seize said lots as abandoned properties? And if so, would you say that there are times when it is appropriate for local governments to step in?

I agree with Chris that it would depend on the exact wording in the local law. You can access that yourself probably at the court house but most easily could contact a lawyer. My personal opinion to answer your question is yes. There are times when governments can and should step in. In your situation someone has neglected to uphold their end of the landowner deal. Therefore, just as if you didn't make payments on a new truck, the government will repossess. In the case of Perryville, the man's interest is to, in his eyes, improve the land. I think he certainly has the right to do so as long as he can find a way within the law. It sucks for us and makes me very angry that he would consider what he's attempting...however, the same right that enables me to preserve is the same enabling power for his freewill. I think as preservationists, it's our right to educate and motivate so that this conflict does not occur so often.
I also agree that this is a great discussion. In fact, discussions like this make America so great! We are blessed to have so many rights that they actually sometimes walk on each other. Hard to believe that debates like this are the public "check and balance" that our country's framers intended with a two party system that requires us to meet in the middle as voters!