In 1993, I was approached by the Friends of the National Parks at Gettysburg to write a series of articles for their newsletter. I was approached because much of my writing as a newspaper reporter had been on the effects of growth on the county.

The articles appeared under my byline and, incidentally, with the approval of my editor. An abbreviated form of the series appeared in The Evening Sun some time later.

With the permission of the Lawrences and the FNPG, here is the second of the five newsletter articles. Naturally, over the passage of time, some of this information has become outdated.

Yours,
Terry W. Burger
Gettysburg: 11/27/97

Things ain't what they used to be: Protecting park land in the 1990s and beyond

With the signing of Public Law 101-377 in August of 1990, the Gettysburg National Military Park had a formal boundary for the first time.

The basic philosophy of the new law involved expanding the park to just under 6,000 acres, an increase of about a third. Most of that 1,900 acres is susceptible to development.

The stated intention of the new law is not to have the federal government gobble up all the land within the new boundaries, but rather to obtain "the minimum federal interest necessary to meet park objectives for conserving and interpreting the battlefield." (GNMP Draft Land Protection Plan, Rev. April 28. 1993; copies are available by writing the GNMP, P.O. Box 1080), Gettysburg Pa. 17325, or by calling 717-334-1124.)

Accomplishing that goal will be easier said than done.

In late June of 1993, the NPS presented to the public a draft land management plan to carry out the "resource preservation" requirements of the Boundary Act.

The 95-page Land Protection Plan contains recommendations for the level of ownership to be acquired by the NPS in each privately owned parcel within the park boundaries.

Some property owners within the new boundary have expressed fears that their property would be condemned. Park officials have maintained in the past however that only about 250 of the 1,900 acres added would be bought outright. Of the remainder, the park service would attempt to purchase development easements, in which certain development rights to the properties are sold, but the property itself remains in the hands of the original owners, and on the tax rolls.

Simply put, a development easement is created when the owner of a piece of land sells the rights to develop that property to another entity, such as the national American Farmland Trust, a government agency or private conservancy.

In the agricultural land preservation programs run by Pennsylvania and other states, easements are purchased at 85 percent of the difference between the agricultural value of the land and that land's value at its "highest and best," meaning "developed," value. NPS negotiations will vary from property to property, as in each case the NPS will be attempting to protect specific and varying aspects of that property, park service sources said.

The new boundary contains 116 properties in which the NPS may someday purchase an interest, a process more complex now than in the past.

During a June, 1993 public meeting held regarding the updating of the park's Land Management Plan, Gettysburg Superintendent Jose A. Cisneros said that 20 years ago the properties would have been identified, Congress would have funded a massive buy-out, and that would have been that.

"Today, we have to look for willing sellers," he said. "If there are no willing sellers, we have no authority to purchase."

Cisneros said later that properties could be taken by eminent domain, but that would only happen under very specific circumstances.

Eminent domain, or "condemnation" is used by the NPS reluctantly, at least in part because it is a "no win" situation for the federal government and a public relations nightmare. No matter the rationale behind the action, the Park Service and the federal government are unfailingly and enthusiastically painted as the 'bad guys.'

In the autumn of 1992, the NPS settled out of court with the owner of a local auction gallery who constructed a commercial building within the new boundary. The property had been purchased after the publication of the 1988 study from which the Boundary Act was formed, but before the Act was signed into law. Construction of the auction gallery began a year after the Boundary Act was signed.

The agreement reached between the federal government and the owner of the auction gallery included a cash settlement of $548,000.

Before the settlement was reached, the gallery owner had reportedly garnered 10,000 signatures on a petition supporting his right to stay where he was.

Two local attorneys, who each represent several landowners within the park, said they believe the general ban on new development created by the new boundary act adversely affects the value of property within the new boundary.

Ron Hagerman, a past president of the county bar association, said he has a client who owns a parcel of less than 10 acres, about a quarter of which falls within the park's zone of interest.

"My client is afraid the park service's interest in that part of her land will have a deleterious effect on her ability to get a good price for her land when and if she decides to sell it," Hagerman said.

Another attorney, who spoke only on condition his name not be used, was more general in his criticism of the real impact of the boundary act.

"What they end up doing in essence is to deprive people of the opportunity to maximize the value of their property through the threat of condemnation."

The attorney said the threat that an attempt by a property owner to develop his or her property could possibly result in an NPS-initiated condemnation proceeding "freezes" the value of that piece of land.

"I don't dispute the fact that the NPS has a right to condemn for historical purposes. What disturbs me is how they operate here. It's almost like inverse condemnation, where you so restrict a piece of ground that it is tantamount to a taking. There have been some U.S. Supreme Court cases on that subject in the past four or five years," he said. "I think it stinks."

Robert Monahan Jr., a Gettysburg businessman and real estate developer, feels differently, however.

Monahan recently purchased a home on 18 acres of ground on the Emmitsburg Road. The property is bordered on two sides by the national park.

"In an area where zoning is not as significant as it is in others areas, anyone who is looking to make a significant investment in a home looks for ways in which they can protect their property," he said. "We looked specifically for a place that has that kind of protection. The park provides us essentially with a scenic easement forever. That will add significantly in the long term to value of the property."

At the same time he expressed concerns about the NPS and the rights of property owners in and adjacent to the park, the anonymous attorney quoted previously said many of the land-use conflicts centering around the park had not ultimately been the fault of the NPS.

"I think over the years we collectively haven't done enough to protect what we have here in terms of land-use control and that sort of thing," he said. "I think that's why we ended up with the National Tower, because we didn't have anything in place. (former Adams County Court of Common Pleas) Judge MacPhail pointed out in that case that the law is not sterile in that area; there are ways to protect resources. I think he was talking about zoning."

The tower has been a sore point for preservation "purists" for nearly two decades. The 307-foot observation tower was built near the Soldier's National Cemetery in 1974. Construction of the tower was fought in local government meetings and eventually in court, where the owners won the day. The NPS hopes to purchase the structure and dismantle it. County records place the value of the tower and the property on which it sits at $4.1 million.

The free-and-easy days of which Cisneros spoke earlier are probably gone forever. In mid-November of 1993 it was learned that the 1994 U.S. Department of the Interior appropriations bill approved by Congress will include $1 million for acquisition of privately owned land within the boundary of the park. Furthermore, Congress approved an additional $100,000 for the NPS to give technical assistance to the Gettysburg community in protecting their historic resources.

Congressman William F. Goodling, an author of the Boundary Act, made the request for the funds, and FNPG board members Franklin Silbey and Andrew McElwaine have been active on the Senate side of the aisle, and FNPG reports "laudable efforts" by Senators Harris Wofford, Arlen Specter and Dennis DeConcini in convincing Senator Robert Byrd of the Senate Appropriations Committee to look favorably on the request.

The 1994 appropriation will bring to $2.8 million the amount garnered through the efforts of FNPG and others over the past three years. Though no "small potatoes," the sum still falls about $11 million short of what will be needed.

Park officials have estimated that easement and outright purchase costs to protect adequately all historic lands around the Gettysburg battlefield would probably run $12 million to $14 million.

How much money the NPS can scrape together relatively quickly is important, because one thing definitely in short supply is time.

The opening in the fall of 1990 of a major four-lane north-south highway through the heart of Adams County has put Baltimore, Washington, D.C., and other urban areas within easier commuting distance of the Gettysburg region. Already, residential growth is increasing exponentially in Adams County, with the number of building permits issued annually climbing into the thousands. The population of the county climbed steadily in recent decades, and the rate of climb is increasing.

In 1950, when General and Mrs. Dwight David Eisenhower bought their farm just outside Gettysburg, the population of Adams County stood at about 44,000. By 1990, that number had climbed to 78,000, and is expected to hit 100,000 shortly after the turn of the century.

The impact of this growth will be more closely detailed in a subsequent installment of this series.

Recognition of the need to "interface" the desires of commercial and residential developers is not limited to entities such as the NPS. In August of 1993, the dean of the Penn State College of Agricultural Sciences said his department is seeking ways to make the meeting of agriculture and development less fractious.

"It's a challenge not only in Adams County, but in a lot of areas in the state where there is a lot of population pressure," Dr. Lamartine F. Hood told a newspaper reporter. "We have to figure out how to maintain our agricultural community in light of the population growth."

Hood said development pressures had been the topic of a meeting the previous day between him and his staff and a number of county officials.

Adams County, of which Gettysburg is the county seat, has had its own agricultural land preservation program since 1989. The program was born out of the state's 1981 Farmland Preservation Act, first passed in 1981 but never funded until a 1987 referendum created a $100 million bond issue.

The Act covers farmland within Agricultural Security Areas (ASA), which are units of 500 acres or more used for agricultural purposes. The act provides protection to farmers in several ways, including a prohibition of laws within an ASA from defining normal farming operations as a public nuisance, forbidding the unreasonable restriction farm practices or farm structures, and requiring local jurisdictions to encourage the continuity, development and viability of agriculture within the area, according to printed material supplied by the state.

Locally, perhaps the most useful portion of the law will be the ability it gives the county, through the oversight of a state board, to purchase the development rights of ASA lands from the farmers, thus giving the farmer some "breathing space" and some money in his pocket.

As this article was being prepared, Adams County was taking another look at the 'fine print' of its Agricultural Preservation program as it relates to properties lying within the GNMP's new boundary or within the Historic District immediately surrounding the park.

Ellen T. Dayhoff, coordinator of the county's preservation program, said how well the two programs might 'interface' depends on who you talk to.

"We had discussion a couple months ago on the farms we'd be interested in within the park boundaries," Dayhoff said. "It's still under discussion. We've agreed to stay in touch. The problem is the NPS easements would be much more restrictive than ours are."

Recently, the county's easement purchase program has "interfaced" with NPS preservation goals, with mixed results.

In June of 1993, the county commissioners amended a county easement agreement with a local farmer, placing a county easement on most of the 211-acre farm, but allowing room for a NPS easement on approximately 10 wooded acres inside the GNMP boundary.

The NPS has listed that portion of the property as "high priority" for their own easement acquisition program.

If the farmer chose to sell further easements to the NPS, restrictions on the use of his own property would, as Dayhoff said, be more strict than the county's. Under the county program he can continue to harvest trees, hunt, and is permitted one dwelling and whatever farm-related buildings he wished to construct.

In another, cooperative effort, the county worked with American Farmland Trust to place an easement on a farm within the "view-shed" of a part of the battlefield called East Cavalry Field. The easement actually went to the AFT; FNPG will be working with the county to raise money to pay back AFT for that easement purchase.

Dayhoff said the NPS and the county agricultural board have agreed to "stay in touch" with one another when their interests coincide or collide, whatever the case.

"The biggest issue is whether or not the county ag board should be interested in farms inside the boundary at all," Dayhoff said. "Perhaps we should say it's in the park, and let the NPS deal with it."

How well the NPS's new land management plan will be received will depend in large part on how the public - especially the affected public - understands the program. Education of the public, and the public's elected representatives, will be important. In this case, however, the old saw about leading a horse to water may apply.

Six months after the Boundary Act became law, the NPS sponsored a meeting for elected officials from affected municipalities.

After two hours of discussion, a newspaper reporter asked the officials from the half-dozen municipalities represented how many had read the 59-page Boundary Study, the 1988 document from which the Boundary Act was formed. Only one raised his hand, though the document had been freely available to those officials and the general public since its release, and had been the subject of numerous local newspaper articles.

In the third of this four-part series, the Friends of the National Parks at Gettysburg will examine specific sources of development pressure on the area surrounding the Gettysburg National Military Park and the Eisenhower National Historic Site.