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

If this was just a "private transaction between a buyer and a seller", why did the Orange County Board of Supervisors have to vote on it??


Isn't anything in this country worth protecting anymore??? What, we have a miserable 1% of all land protected & we tell the Amazon indians to stop cutting down the rainforest and be more responsible - oh wait a minute we do a much worse job of protecting anything in this country. Poor Teddy Roosevelt is probably turning over in his grave in disgust!


While it was a private transaction, local zoning regs came into play that the board had to address, and apparently one required approval of a variance to allow such a large supercenter.


Does anyone in America care about anything but money. Cash for clunkers. First time homeowners. Bail out the banks. Too big to fail. National health care..... I think soon I should be able to make a living by just selling my vote to the highest bidder!


To 'I feel your pain!' - in this case it was NOT government owned land nor part of any "National Parks" or "National forest." And Anonymous - the county voted to let WalMart build there, not to allow the land sale - granted Walmart would not have bought the land without the approval to build - but, this is AMERICA. If Walmart didn't think they would make money there, they wouldn't want the land - I would bet that it IS a good place for a Walmart...
I am not a fan of the walmartization of the nation or the dwindling of places of honor - the government COULD have stepped in and offered more money and BOUGHT the land, they didn't. But to just arbitrarily say that Joe can't build here because Mary doesn't like it ???? I think city/county councils abuse their rights as it is - less government is better government (that was Reagan, not me).


So, if your neighbor sells his land next door and the new owner is going to build a sewage treatment plant, that is OK? Its a private deal after all!


From my understanding of Wal-Mart's business practices, they will often scoop up land before they have any assurance that they can build on the site. That's usually contingent on a good price.

This was the store site I was talking about, in Hercules, California. The city had originally setup up this shopping area for a 64,000 square foot building, but Wal-Mart's initial plans were for a 143,000 square foot store. The city even tried using eminent domain to buy the land back for $16.6M, but apparently that got overturned by a judge; it was something about the city not demonstrating that it could achieve higher tax revenues which is key to a city being able to enforce eminent domain. As of now I don't think ground has broken. I haven't really heard anything recently other than it being stuck in court.

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/news/hercules_vs__wal_mart/Content?oid=317525

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/02/17/HOGGDO3HED1.DTL

They're fighting really hard with this one. Even though here's a case where the city and the local population have made it clear they don't want it, I think they're spending all this money on legal fees simply because they don't want to be told they can't build it.


I certainly sympathize with not wanting to lose historic areas, but my question is, if it was part of the battlefield, why was this property never made a part of the park site? If so many people didn't want it developed, why not band together and purchase the site from the owner and donate it to the park? It seems very easy to villanize Wal-Mart and say "how dare they develop here" when in fact, they have just as much right to build as anyone else. I read an earlier article on this on a news website, and it mentioned that many in the county spoke in front of the officials in favor of the Wal-Mart.


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.