February 22nd, 1999
 

Congressman James V. Hansen
814 O'Neill Building
New Jersey & "C" Street, S.E.
Washington, D.C.  20515
 

Dear Mr. Chairman,

Please allow me introduce myself, I am currently Chairman of the
Association for the Preservation of Civil War Sites, one of the nations
largest Civil War battlefield preservation groups. On behalf of our
membership and board, I would like to commend you on the hearing you
held last week concerning the current proposal to permit a mall with a
very large commercial component, within the boundaries of the Gettysburg
National Park. On behalf of our organization we want to express our
objection to this project. As you may already know, Mr. Dennis Frye, the
former president of our organization, with board approval, testified in
opposition to this project, at the February 1998 Senate hearings. While
I cannot speak for other organizations in the preservation field, I wish
to formally express the unalterable opposition by the APCWS to this or
any plan, to allow commercial development on any hallowed Civil War
battlefield ground.
 
Although many of our board and membership believe in a "Museum of the
American Civil War" concept at Gettysburg, we are disturbed by the
National Park Service's unwillingness to make public what looks to be a
preconceived plan. The secrecy surrounding the entire process is equally
troubling, and has been from its inception.

As a former President and founding member of "The Friends of the
National Parks at Gettysburg", I have been opposed to this project for
any number of reasons. First, I am not convinced this type of
relationship is good for the nations historic resources. Furthermore,
our organization and myself also reject the GNMP and its
superintendent's continued insistence that it must look to a commercial
entity to assume its fiduciary responsibilities. GNMP and its
Superintendent have demonstrated a total lack of stewardship towards
this battlefield. Over the past few decades their obligation to preserve
this historic resource has been misplaced. The proposed commercial
enterprise alongside the already existing commercial eyesore known as
the "Battlefield Tower" will allow for expanding intrusion on the very
same tract of land not more than a few feet from the Soldier's National
Cemetery where President Abraham Lincoln gave the immortal Gettysburg
Address.
 Coming in the wake of the controversy swirling around the GNMP and
National Park Service's handling of the "Railroad Cut" land transfer, we
are frankly surprised that the two parties should look to propose such a
plan. As you recall from testimony given at your hearing and one
conducted by then-Congressman Mike Synar in 1994, the NPS and GNMP
permitted the bulldozing of an historic site simply for the purposes of
accommodating a private railroad. To intrude again upon pristine, virgin
battleground to benefit yet another private concern is a staggering
concept at a time when we look to our government agencies to live up to
their responsibilities to protect our historic national treasures. Must
we again revisit the issues, not to mention the unnecessary expenditures
of money, that we were faced with dating back to Manassas battlefield
and its mall project?

Perhaps more confusing are recent National Park Service and GNMP actions
surrounding the condemnation of the Yingling Auction Barn property. It
was only a few years ago that the GNMP utilized the condemnation process
to remove a new intrusion within the Park's boundary. This commercial
building was purchased - after a process of appraisal and negotiation -
for an inflated price and then removed. How can the National Park
Service condemn one intrusion and then support another? We have to
question the motives of NPS, GNMP, as well as others that support this
project.

It has been said that the Civil War preservation community supports this
commercial mall within the boundaries of the park. This is false. Of
only a few Civil War organizations supporting this project, the most
vocal is the Friends of the National Parks at Gettysburg. An
organization about which there are far too many questions regarding
conflicts of interest. This relationship and especially the Memorandum
Operating Agreement between the Friends and the GNMP need to be
carefully interpreted by Congress. That APCWS, the Association of Civil
War Roundtables, and the Gettysburg Battlefield Preservation Association
oppose such a plan, I believe serves as a far better barometer of what
the Civil War community truly feels about the project.

Our battlefields are disappearing at an alarming rate. This project
takes away from the many genuine efforts of preservation groups all
across the country. To preserve our battlefields and, therefore our
heritage, is a task those of us associated with APCWS face each day. We
must raise millions of dollars to compete with developers who wish to
raise the sites where our forefathers fell. To compete with people who
can count the federal government as their partners is to call into
question the very worth of work most people in the United States
support.

I am appalled at the arrogance of NPS and GNMP in dealing with the
Gettysburg Borough Council, the Adams County municipality, not to
mention the Gettysburg Battlefield Preservation Association, and
virtually unanimous opposition from the local residents. From the start,
while president of the Friends, and now while serving as Chairman of
APCWS, I have seen this project as a very bad idea. I have experience
with the inner workings of all parties concerned, and as such would not
give any endorsement to this private/public venture. There are simply
too many issues that require honest, open answers, which have up till
now been withheld from the Congress and the public. The battlefield and
Borough of Gettysburg would be far better served if this project were
stopped.

We certainly do not need another "Tower" on the fields of Gettysburg.
Mistakes have been made in the past. To allow new ones so similar would
be to do irreparable damage to the NPS reputation as stewards of our
natural and historic heritage. Those of us involved in helping preserve
our national heritage ask for your direct influence in halting this
plan. It was the veterans of that conflict who made Gettysburg their
memorial to the struggle for American freedom. It is our duty to
preserve their commitment.

Thank you again for your interest on behalf of our heritage. I would be
delighted to discuss this issue with you or your staff at any time
convenient to you.

Sincerely,
 
 
 

Alan E. Hoeweler
Chairman
The Association for the Preservation of Civil War Sites