You are here

"Wilderness Wal-Mart" Near Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park Gets Go-Head From Virginia Officials

Share

Planning officials in Virginia have given Wal-Mart permission to build a sprawling Supercenter near the Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park. Kurt Repanshek photo.

An effort to keep Wal-Mart from building a Supercenter on hallowed ground near Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park has failed, with Orange County, Virginia, officials saying, "(T)his was a private deal between a private landowner and private business."

The vote brought quick condemnation from both the Civil War Preservation Trust and the National Parks Conservation Association, with both groups pledging to continue to try to stop the project.

The long-running battled that pitted Civil War preservationists against a corporate giant ended early Tuesday when the county's Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 to approve plans that call for a nearly 140,000-square-foot Supercenter with accompanying retail outlets on land that historically was part of the Wilderness Battlefield.

“I am deeply disappointed by today’s vote. The Orange County Board of Supervisors had an opportunity to protect the battlefield by embracing a reasonable compromise approach to the Wal-Mart superstore proposal. Instead, they ignored rational voices on the national, state and local level encouraging them to work with the preservation community and local landowners to find a more suitable alternative location," said the organization's president, James Lighthizer.

“Today’s vote is not just a setback for preservationists. Orange County residents are losers as well. If the county had embraced the preservation planning process first proposed by the Wilderness Battlefield Coalition in January, there would have been an opportunity to mitigate the transportation and development impacts of the proposal. Instead, the board voted to repeat the mistakes made by other localities, who are now struggling to address the problems created by similar piecemeal development and rampant sprawl.

“The ball is now in Wal-Mart’s court. Wal-Mart better understands the nationwide anger generated by its proposal to build on the doorstep of a National Park. It is in the corporation’s best interests to work with the preservation community to find an alternative site. After all, building a big box superstore on the Wilderness Battlefield would belie recent attempts to portray Wal-Mart as environmentally sensitive. We are optimistic that company officials will see the wisdom of moving elsewhere," continued Mr. Lighthizer.

"The Civil War Preservation Trust and the other member groups of the Wilderness Battlefield Coalition will now carefully weigh options for continued opposition of this misguided proposal. This battle is not over yet.”

At the NPCA's Virginia office, Catharine Gilliam said she was not surprised by the vote.

"This commercial development is improperly sited on land that is critical to understanding the National Park Service's interpretation of the Battle of the Wilderness for the American people. NPCA has actively participated and offered constructive suggestions to find alternatives that would protect the neighboring national park and allow a Walmart to be built on less sensitive land," she said. "It is not necessary to desecrate the land where a horrific battle took place less than 150 years ago in pursuit of profit and pavement.

"Although members of the Orange County Board of Supervisors announced repeatedly that they would vote to approve Walmart's application, even before the public process began, NPCA and our members, and other organizations in the Wilderness Battlefield Coalition, participated in the public process at every stage available," Ms. Gilliam added. "Despite last night's disappointing vote, we will continue to explore options to protect this important national park. This battle is not over yet. We continue to hold out hope that Walmart will do the right thing by relocating its business, and respect and protect Americas heritage and history."

Among those who urged Orange County to choose another location for the proposed Wal-Mart were U.S. Senator Jim Webb (D-Va.); Virginia Governor Tim Kaine (D) and House of Delegates Speaker Bill Howell (R); actors Robert Duvall, Richard Dreyfuss and Ben Stein; and more than 250 historians, including Pulitzer prize-winning authors David McCullough and James McPherson and acclaimed documentarian Ken Burns.

According to the National Park Service, the Battle of the Wilderness was fought on May 5-6, 1864, with troops under both Union General Ulysses S. Grant and Confederate General Robert E. Lee engaged. "It was the beginning of the Overland Campaign, the bloodiest campaign in American history and the turning point in the war in the Eastern Theatre," notes the agency.

Comments

I guess I do not understand the outrage here. Without being disrespectful, this is private property. To deny the right to use that in a reasonable way would be an unconstitutional "taking" of the rights of property owners. Last fall, there was the issue of oil/mineral leases contemplated next to parks in Utah. Those bothered me a lot more than the current dispute. In Utah, people go to the parks for the views, which would be lost. Here, there are no views lost; the battlefield still serves its purpose as a place to respect and honor sacrifices made by prior generations.
The Walmart hatred is off base. If anything, Walmart has been nicer than they needed to be in many ways, far nicer than almost every other big box store. I have not heard of others donating millions of acres of land for preservation like Walmart has.
If you want to discuss disrespect, consider the treatment of my ancestors. The land containing the pioneer cemetary in or near Junction City, Oregon has been purchased by an energy company, which relocated the graves and you now need special permission to go there. Once there, you encounter an overgrown jumble where you have to kick the grass and weeds aside to try to read the markers.
The Battlefield is intact. The constitution has been honored.


County governments are allowed to take the size of a development into consideration. Some projects are simply out of scale for the neighborhood. That's what the permit process is supposed to be for.

Here's the location. Most of what's currently there seems pretty low key right now. From what I understand, part of the outrage isn't that the current boundaries of the NPS land will be disturbed, but that the battleground as a whole spilled out beyond the NPS boundaries and into what's now the proposed Wal-Mart site.

http://abcnews.go.com/Travel/Story?id=7666961

Here's the Park Superintendent with a map. You can see that the green areas are the actual park boundaries, while the historic battlefield looks to be far beyond just the park boundaries. I'm guessing that there's hope that some day the NPS boundaries can be extended.

http://www.newsleader.com/article/20090825/NEWS0101/908250317

Right now there's a fight over a proposed Wal-Mart in a town near where I live. While it would be a huge revenue source for the city, they're hesitant to approve it because of how it might change the city's character and impact traffic in a tight area.


To KevinM:

Actually, there would be views lost. The Walmart would impede the view from Ellwood, the Union HQ during the battle. Not to mention the light pollution at night and the increase in traffic noise.

I understand your frustration at the relocation of a gravesite in Oregon. I feel the same way about this site. You should realize that the area where the Walmart is going to be built is also a gravesite. There were hundreds, if not thousands of missing soldiers in the battle, laid to rest in unmarked graves. Who's to say that some are not resting where the development will go. y_p_w is correct in saying that the actual battlefield extends far beyond the park boundaries.


If it were a simple land sale, between buyer and seller, I would go with all the landowner-rights arguments. But this is *not* a simple sale - a special use permit had to be granted. This development is way out of proportion with the existing community and the character of the historical site. And as far as the "taking" of private land, what about the concept of "eminent domain"? Many times I've seen private land taken from the owners so that the town can build commercial space. The truth of the matter is private ownership is treated as an elastic concept - your town WILL take your land if it is convenient and profitable to do so! We shouldn't blame Walmart - at least they're honest about their motives. The Orange County Board of Supervisors have sold their collective souls and our history for tax revenue. Unbelievable! I wonder how it feels to be morally bankrupt.

Many of you folks are used to wide-open Western spaces. It helps to understand the pressure of high density. I'm sorry to have to tell you the only truly open spaces in Virginia are those designated AS parkland. I've lived in Virginia for 30 years and am sad to say I have seen what's left of our open spaces shrink year by year so that greedy developers can make a buck. Unbridled sprawl has taken its toll - the air is bad, the water tastes like chlorinated plastic, and the acreage recently taken (by eminent domain, hello) for highway expansion is truly sinful. And all for money.


RE: reference to Jimi W. "This is not a government problem"... Wrong! Even if the land was owned and deemed "National Parks" or "National forest" it can still and will be sold if "the money is right" Case and point: Tonto National forest in Arizona. Highway 87 north from Mesa, AZ approximatley 17 miles N.E., you travel through the Fort McDowell Indian reservation and the next sign you came upon was the "Welcome to Tonto National forest"... Not any more. The sign is gone and now... There are several roads cut through the desert wilderness that traverse the highway going up to prime real estate and upscale stucco homes dotting the once majestic mountain views of Four Peaks mountain. Just another one of those "a good deal for everyone" that MOST everyone looses and a developer capitalizes on the opportuntiy. Though not really his fault as we the public must have been a sleep at the wheel. Where were the tree hugger's when we needed them... Oh thats right it's the desert, no trees, just 100 year old saguaro cactus.


CivilWarBuff, you might be more acquainted with the protocol - what would happen if Walmart's builders happen to bulldoze up some buried relics? Would there be a review? Would it halt the project? Would it become an "archaeological site"? Seems to me this could be a real possibility.


I'd note that the Forest Service is under the purview of the Dept of Agriculture and has a far different mandate than the NPS. Their mandate is more in line with the Bureau of Land Management in regards to commercial uses such as timber harvesting, mining, or collecting. Sometimes they strike a balance with some areas under their jurisdiction as designated wilderness. Many of the prime ski resorts in the US are on Forest Service land and numerous pricey vacation homes have been built with long term leases on the plots.

There's probably no place in the country where the FS has such a direct impact on residential communities as the Lake Tahoe Basin. They own plots of land between homes and own much of the land private residences sit on. Still - the Lake Tahoe area is one where they have pretty much stopped any commercial timber harvesting altogether. My understanding is that there were attempts to declare the area a National Park in the early 20th century, only to be shot down in Congress. This was long before the large scale development we see in the are today - as there were some vacation homes as well as logging companies that were running out of trees to cut.


Do you still want to shop at Wal-Mart? I'll think twice before I do! In my area there are many alternatives. How can these government officials vote to build on this historically significant land? Have they no pride? Have they no patriotic feelings? Their action is very disturbing.


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.