|
|
||
Is the second battle of the Wilderness over? Date published: 8/30/2009
THERE LAST WEEK stood four of Meritless litigation would be unseemly and, ultimately, useless. It would disdain public proceedings that, however odious their outcome, have evidently been on the square, and it would impede the right of an American citizen to legally dispose of his property. After Appomattox, Robert E. Lee quashed Confederate talk of continuing the conflict via guerrilla war. Last week's losers should also forswear tactics that merely harass. Moreover, Walmart's pockets are a bit deeper than those of any Parthian shooters. As to moral suasion targeted at Bentonville, it is worth a try, though the record is unpromising. Once Walmart fixes on a site, the retail behemoth rarely backtracks. The detouring in the 1990s of Walmart from Ferry Farm, George Washington's boyhood home, is a happy exception that proves the rule. But it was the rule that applied at places like history-drenched Chestertown, Md., founded in 1706, which had to wage a harrowing 10-year battle to keep out Walmart, and Charlotte Pike, Tenn., site of both a Civil War battle and an Indian burial ground, where Walmart built a store over historians' and American Indians' protests. The common theme in these set-tos was expressed in the statement of a Walmart rep to Chestertown's mayor: "We don't lose." Walmart nabobs may relent when they glean the historical importance of the Wilderness--the beginning of the end for Lee's army--and the friends of history should try to take that message to the highest corporate suites. Yet for months the nation's leading Civil War historians have railed against a Wilderness Walmart. Celebrities Robert Duvall and Ben Stein have joined them. The Washington Post, the L.A. Times, and ABC News have reported the controversy. If Walmart's executives are ignorant about the Wilderness, they rate a ticker-tape parade down Broadway as the first Earthlings to have just returned from the planet Pluto.
This area was zoned commercial well before Wal-Mart decided to move to Orange County. The zoning laws required a special permit for buildings over 60K square feet.
The bottom line is, if you agree with the rezoning to accommodate Wildermarts, reelect those 4 individuals responsible. If you disagree with their accommodations, vote them out. They have suitcases! You know you’ll not receive any sentiment one way or another from Walmart. Whether or not this will have a residual or ripple effect, time will tell. It’s like Gettysburg, do you like the battlefield or the shopping.
The Free-Lance Star has failed throughout this dispute to adequately address two key issues-the existing commercializaton of the area in question and the rights of the property owners involved. A Google Earth photo would have put the commercializaton matter in context. And I have seen nothing in your so-called "decent compromise" about how the property owners would be compensated if denied the right to put commercially zoned property to commercial use.
The plan that was approved is a compromise. It's sets aside 17 acres of commercially zoned property as a conservation easement; the site plan was modifield to block the store from views from the highway; Wal-Mart is paying for $1.2 million in road improvements; they left in place a 100 foot natural tree buffer along Route 3. The preservation groups have never made an attempt to buy this property. Orange County needs to balance history with economic opportunity: this compromise accomplishes that.
The plan that was approved is a compromise. It's sets aside 17 acres of commercially zoned property as a conservation easement; the site plan was modifield to block the store from views from the highway; Wal-Mart is paying for $1.2 million in road improvements; they left in place a 100 foot natural tree buffer along Route 3. The preservation groups have never made an attempt to buy this property. Orange County needs to balance history with economic opportunity: this compromise accomplishes that.
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||
