The Debate about Land Preservation (Perryville)

[Mike Willey]

Re: The Debate about Land Preservation (Perryville)

Luke,

Well spoken. But also consider this point. In our historic district, we cannot build new structures, or alter existing structures without approval of a design and review board, etc.

Is this not similar to the Perryville question?

I could hypothetically buy the land, but I cannot (without great difficulty) put anything on it. And no, I don't actually want to build anything. But is it not similar to Perryville?

And, as another point for people to ponder, if this were land adjacent to G-burg or Antietam or Shiloh, would you still feel the same way? What about the anti-casino movement at G-burg?

Respectfully Submitted,

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

[KyCavMajor]

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

I suppose since we actually rent our property from the government they can and do seize it for back taxes. Please don't get me started on taxes.... please!

The problem with "sprawl" is this. One man's sprawl is anothers slice of heaven. Should those that got their piece deny others the right to live in the same area? Who decides that? By the way, to avoid close neighbors I moved to the country and bought the twenty acres surrounding me, that is how I solved my sprawl problem.

One point that always interested me when i heard it,and i have not checked the math but it sounds close.If you took the entire population of the palnet and divided into families of four, then gave them a house on a quarter acre of land, they would all fit in Texas. THAT is how big this country is. Sprawl doesn't concern me much.

[JimConley]

Re: The Debate about Land Preservation (Perryville)

Your stubborn thick headed pard

Tod,
I'm glad to see you can find some humor in this. I'm not laughing. I meant what I said as it relates to this discussion and your comments.

I find it pointless to continue in this manner, because it is obvious neither of us have made a dent on the other. However, I will say this last piece directed towards you and leave it at that. Take from it what you will.

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.

Yes the decision made by Perryville City Council was based upon different variables than purely preservation. And it was a legitimate decision because it was well within their rights. This is not an issue over someone painting their house or not having a properly licensed vehicle in their driveway, this is much bigger. This issue does concern the town and its people because it affects all of them. Rezoning an area to develop would likely mean increased taxes on a number of things from living expenses to school costs in the area. And, yes, it is also a different matter because of the people that care about the historical significance of the area.

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.

Times have changed. I would venture to say that if you asked a veteran from the Civil War even through Vietnam to look at the massive development that is occurring in this country, they might disagree with you. And, even more so that everyday more and more of our physical history is being lost. I think many of them would be horrified at what has happened to America in a physical sense. Am I for telling people how to live? Absolutely not. But, I am also not selfish enough to think I was denied anything if my actions, that affected the community around me, were not in the best interest of their future as well.

I agree and disagree with you regarding the last line of this quote. I do believe that American history has been white-washed to an extent in our schools. However, I also believe that physical history is very important as well. So too do the people that have set protected historic land for us and future generations.

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 have given a fair amount of time to Perryville as well. I don't recall having any lasting injuries afterwards, but I've put in some effort over the years. And I think it is sad that you have seen the devastation of these places and still cannot bring yourself to support them. Again, it is well within the rights of local communities to vote on issues like this because it concerns so many people. Obviously, many towns across America have gone where the money is, allowing places of historic significance to be lost. But, that is why I and many others are so passionate about this issue, because so much has been lost already. Why should we continue to watch it happen if we are, indeed, capable of helping in some way?

It truly makes me sad to hear someone speak the way you have on this topic. I think that your reasoning, while it holds some validity on the surface, is too much of here and now. I fear that too many people will continue to use this same reasoning until our towns become little more than suburbs of suburbs. There is so much gray being ignored by such a black and white perspective.

[lukegilly13]

Re: The Debate about Land Preservation (Perryville)

I hope any of my comments have not been mistaken. I agree with a great deal of Jim's last comment and I certainy agree with his motivation behind them. It sounds like Tod does too. I just don't think it is okay to tell people what they can and cannot do with their land outside of laws existing previous to the purchase of that land. My neighbor doesn't like my dad's apple tree in the back yard because it blocks his view from the kitchen. The apple tree has been there for 20 years and it will be there in 20 more because my dad loves it and sits under it daily and whittles. I think that our country's most valuable resource is our nation's history...be it natural, verbal, etc. However, I think the only way we can preserve that is through education and motivation. If this man is determined to develop his land....he should be able to. It is our job to help him find a way that will work with our concerns. We are stumbling on topics that split the county in '61 with the "where do we draw the line" scenarios. Is it possible that the debates here are not about land preservation...but more so about how to preserve it without trampling someone's rights? Maybe we should change it to the "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit and preservation of happiness."
Here's a strange scenario...suppose this guy builds a hotel....a very rich man stays in a room there overlooking the battle field...because of the view...he decides to donate $1,000,000 to its preservation? Do we hate the motel...yes.....do we accept the mil....yes!

[Hank Trent]

Re: The Debate about Land Preservation (Perryville)

I just don't think it is okay to tell people what they can and cannot do with their land outside of laws existing previous to the purchase of that land.

I haven't studied the situation in detail and I don't know that much about zoning laws, so maybe somebody more knowledgeable can explain.

If the owner is asking for a variance or rezoning, doesn't that mean the existing laws prohibit the development? Was the property zoned the same when he purchased it? If so, wouldn't that mean he can still do everything he was allowed to do legally when he purchased the property? The problem is that he wants a change to allow him to do more.

So were zoning laws passed after he bought the property, restricting what he can do, and he only wants his original rights restored?

Or did he buy it with the current zoning in place, and he now wants a change so he can do more?

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[lukegilly13]

Re: The Debate about Land Preservation (Perryville)

I'm not 100% sure of the Perryville situation. My intentions were for a hypothetical situation. If the laws were in place restricting development at the time of his purchase...then I believe that he has no argument for development. I believe it to be wrong if laws were passed after his purchase.
I think we must walk softly and carry a big stick in this situation. The worst case scenario is this landowner feels that his hand is being forced because he is holding all the cards to get revenge. If he feels that preservationists are simply working for the good of the community, then that leaves him room to meet in the middle.

[KyCavMajor]

Re: The Debate about Land Preservation (Perryville)

Tod,
I'm glad to see you can find some humor in this. I'm not laughing. I meant what I said as it relates to this discussion and your comments.

A pity. I had hoped two people with the same hopes as to the preservation of historic sites but have a disagreement as to what is the fair way of doing it might do so with out hard feelings.

I find it pointless to continue in this manner, because it is obvious neither of us have made a dent on the other. However, I will say this last piece directed towards you and leave it at that. Take from it what you will.


Yes the decision made by Perryville City Council was based upon different variables than purely preservation. And it was a legitimate decision because it was well within their rights. This is not an issue over someone painting their house or not having a properly licensed vehicle in their driveway, this is much bigger. This issue does concern the town and its people because it affects all of them. Rezoning an area to develop would likely mean increased taxes on a number of things from living expenses to school costs in the area. And, yes, it is also a different matter because of the people that care about the historical significance of the area.

So all development must be halted because it will cause a temporary expenditure of funds that will lead to property taxes being collected, citizens moving to and buying locally for decades to come?
And by the way, the issue is EXACTLY the same as the right to paint your house or park an unlicensed vehicle in your driveway. Exactly the same. The problem is that this time it is YOU that doesn't like the change in the view, and I wouldn't like it either by the way. I just think there are other factors involved, the rights of others to be exact.

Times have changed. I would venture to say that if you asked a veteran from the Civil War even through Vietnam to look at the massive development that is occurring in this country, they might disagree with you.

I would disagree! I would expect a great many would say "WOW! Look at what they are doing with the freedom we won for them! What a great nation we have built!"

And, even more so that everyday more and more of our physical history is being lost. I think many of them would be horrified at what has happened to America in a physical sense. Am I for telling people how to live? Absolutely not. But, I am also not selfish enough to think I was denied anything if my actions, that affected the community around me, were not in the best interest of their future as well.

Horrified that their descendants have built a great nation, a place where if a person can't afford a nice place to live in town he can drive until he qualifies as the Realtors say? You would shove the populations back into the cities because their houses offend you? THAT seems a tad selfish to me... I do not care for urban living.

I agree and disagree with you regarding the last line of this quote. I do believe that American history has been white-washed to an extent in our schools. However, I also believe that physical history is very important as well. So too do the people that have set protected historic land for us and future generations.

Great, I applaude those that have set aside legally, and in my mind more importantly morally obtained historic ground for us to view. I hope more do, I would love to see it.

I have given a fair amount of time to Perryville as well. I don't recall having any lasting injuries afterwards, but I've put in some effort over the years. And I think it is sad that you have seen the devastation of these places and still cannot bring yourself to support them.

It is not that I do not support them! I do in fact by visiting them and always adding a few $$$ to the ever present donation box. My point is simply this. Those landmarks were created by men and woman struggling AGAINST what they perceived as tyranny. To substitute another tyranny to justify the denial of a property owners rights to sooth our aesthetic sensibilities seems to trivialize their struggles.

Again, it is well within the rights of local communities to vote on issues like this because it concerns so many people. Obviously, many towns across America have gone where the money is, allowing places of historic significance to be lost. But, that is why I and many others are so passionate about this issue, because so much has been lost already. Why should we continue to watch it happen if we are, indeed, capable of helping in some way?

Our only disagreement is on how the goal of preservation is met! The end does not justify the means. The loss of rights to preserve the memory of people who fought for rights?

It truly makes me sad to hear someone speak the way you have on this topic. I think that your reasoning, while it holds some validity on the surface, is too much of here and now. I fear that too many people will continue to use this same reasoning until our towns become little more than suburbs of suburbs. There is so much gray being ignored by such a black and white perspective.

And where would you FORCE people to live? Do you live in town? Do you like it? I don't, I tried it and I didn't like it at all, too many neighbors telling me what color to paint my house so I moved out of the city, Indianpolis to be exact.
You would deny me that right because you don't like suburbs? This country now has 300 million plus people in it, Atlanta had like 12,000 pre civil war, where should the couple million that live there go? Part of the American dream has always been a quarter acre lot in the Burbs with a white picket fence, at least for a great many of our citizens. We can't all be urban condo dwellers, for me that would be a living hell.

I admire your passion for a fine cause, but I believe your "win at all cost, the end justifies the means" way of going about it is wrong. While you accuse me of being "black and white" on the issue I would suggest you do a little self examination.

With that I wish a Good day, and I would still share my canteen with you

[jigadier brindle]

Re: The Debate about Land Preservation (Perryville)

I realize I've joined this discussion somewhat late, but I think it's worthwhile to hear the opinion of the United States Supreme Court on the issue of battlefield preservation.

Some of you may not be familiar with this case (United States v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Company 160 U.S. 668), but it was a landmark decision by the court, it is still revisited often, and was the first time the court truly brought up the issue of historic preservation. Also, it just happens that it greatly impacted the future of Gettysburg National Military Park, which I recognize most of you have likely visited and enjoyed sometime in the past.

On January 27, 1896, Justice Rufus Wheeler Peckham of the United States Supreme Court handed down the court's unanimous decision [with the most salient point highlighted in red]:

The end to be attained, by this proposed use, as provided for by the act of Congress, is legitimate, and lies within the scope of the constitution. The battle of Gettysburg was one of the great battles of the world. The numbers contained in the opposing armies were great; the sacrifices of life was dreadful; while the bravery, and, indeed, heroism displayed by both contending forces, rank with the highest exhibition of these qualities ever made by man. The importance of the issue involved in the contest of which this great battle was a part cannot be overestimated. The existence of the government itself, and the perpetuity of our institutions depended upon the result... .Can it be that the government is without power to preserve the land, and properly mark out the various sites upon which this struggle took place? Can it not erect the monuments provided for by these acts of Congress, or even take possession of the field of battle, in the name and for the benefit of all the citizens of the country, for the present and for the future? Such a use seems necessarily not only a public use, but one so closely connected with the welfare of the republic itself as to be within the powers granted Congress by the constitution for the purpose of protecting and preserving the whole country.



This decision, and more about the Origin of the National Military Park idea can be found at: http://www.nps.gov/history/history/o.../nmpidea5a.htm


I can't imagine that I'll change many minds - but I like the spirit and the idea behind Justice Peckham's decision. It's a question that ultimately we must ask ourselves, and I know that when I do the answer of course is yes, of course our government and private citizens together must work to preserve this land.


-Nicholas Redding

[paulcalloway]

Re: The Debate about Land Preservation (Perryville)

Gents -
This is a Civil War Preservation folder on a site that is unabashedly pro-preservation. I think a lot of eloquent arguments have been made regarding the abuse of power by various governments and municipalities, but bottom line - it is the official position of this website to support Civil War preservation. Perhaps not in every case, but certainly in this case (Perryville).

I don't believe it serves any further purpose to continue this debate. The arguement here will only continue to escalate.