Visit the Photo Place

Wanted: Middlemen

Property rights vs. preservation: Can we find the balance locally?

Date published: 8/20/2004

Gettysburg, Antietam prove that balancing preservation, property rights is possible

With malice toward none, and charity for all

--Abraham Lincoln

THE CONFLICT between preservation and property rights plays out in this area almost daily. From Chancellorsville to Crow's Nest, population growth pressures the development of land that is of special value. Property owners have a right to try to profit from their holdings, but, once developed, a battlefield or a natural area is lost forever. In this battle, Lincoln's words, penned in 1865 with the ground still oozing American blood, serve as a useful maxim.

How to find a balance? Within two weeks of the Battle of Gettysburg, two lawyers, of admittedly uncertain motive, scooped up land integral to the conflict. Now, the federal government owns 5,800 acres, and groups such as the Friends of the National Parks at Gettysburg are buying more land to save. With 1.8 million people visiting Gettysburg annually, the maintenance of viewsheds and open fields is deemed as important as that of the actual battlefield. After all, tourists can see 7-Elevens and wall-to-wall houses in their own hometowns. So, through federal and private purchases, zoning, and historic and agricultural easements, the Gettysburg Battlefield survives as a gripping memorial to those who fought, an informative historic site for visitors, and a local economic engine.

Similarly, in Washington County, Md., a collection of public and private groups has banded together to save over 4,000 acres around Antietam. The groups' methods range from buying development rights to funding agricultural land preservation by levying a flat fee on county property owners.

The local struggle to save important properties has often turned bitter. When a key part of the Chancellorsville battleground fell under the shadow of large-scale development in 2002, a public outcry and a "no" vote from Spotsylvania supervisors nixed that deal, but not before some preservationists had unfairly vilified landowner John Mullins for trying to exercising his commercial rights on property he had honestly acquired. In turn, Mr. Mullins petulantly raised his asking price $15 million when preservation groups became the prime bidders for the land.

Follow us on

Date published: 8/20/2004