Superintendent Latschar: Hi! This is John Latschar, supt of Gettysburg. I understand you folks may have a few questions for me tonight.
JAL: I just received my copy of the RFP. I do not understand the evaluation
method with one
JAL: Respectfuly, no sir it doesn't
Superintendent Latschar: Could you re-state what you don't understand, please?
JAL: How am I to compare the value achieved in catagory 1 with
the value received in catagory 2, etc.. What is the max score on any
evaluatiion criteria
Superintendent Latschar: There were no point values attached to any of the ten criteria;
again, in our attempt to figure out the over=all best, we were reluctant
to give a relative point value towards financial feasibility, as compared
to site location. Both are absolutely necessary, but which should have a
higher value? We said neither.
TerryM: Good evening Dr. L.
Much of the discussion
in the group has seemed to have been
divided upon the question of the location selected for the proposal.
Versus the need for the facilities
the proposal would provide. Many of us acknowledge the crying need
for
funding and are sympathetic with the NPS desire to look after the
lands and items in their
stewardship.
However - and this is a big however -
a major sticking point for many of us is that in providing for the
needs of
the park we will be bulldozing and erasing a part of the 1863
battlefield.
Superintendent Latschar: You've asked two questions: #1 - we believe the site of the current
facilities CAN be restored meaingfully. How many of you folks remember
the Stuckey's which used to sit opposite the Rose Farm on Emmitsburg Road?
#2 - the current facilities sit on the MOST significant combat terrain on
the battlefield, where 974 men from over 33 units because casualties.
BroBob: My concernkDRL is that Cemeterey hill be fully restored. For
instance will the
parking lots be removed? also did the Monahan proposal
include restoring Cemetery Hill?
Superintendent Latschar: Under the Kinsley proposal, 100% of Cemetery Ridge will be restored;
buildings, parking lots, and access roads to those lots will all be
removed. Under the Monahan proposal, a portion of the current Visitor
Center and its parking lot would have remained.
TerryM: The rehabilitation of Cemetery Hill...the process of that is very
interesting to me. I posted a question on the BBS earlier concerning
this.
Some members of this group have stated that prior to the erection of
the
current cyclorama bldg, the Ziegler's grove area was photographed in
great detail, as a way of documenting it's 1960s appearance.
How exactly would the reconstruction of the 1863 appearance
of Ziegler's grove be accomplished. What
kinds of documentation and planning would be brought to bear?
Superintendent Latschar: Some of your question got dropped, but I think I understand. We've
got good historic photos of the area prior to the Cyclo, and we have the
ability to load those into our Geographic Information system. Since most
of thos photos date from the 1860s and 1870s, we think we can get the
topography real close to the time of the battle.*
JackL: Dr. Lasher, thank you for talking to us. I understand that the NPS is
authorized to "Take" property that it deems needed to protect the Park.
The real question is, are you prepared to do so. If so, what are the
criteria ? Would you use this authority to stop a rr cut "improvement"in
its tracks so to speak, or for something as small as re positioning the
*th ohio marker. thank you. jack lawrence,
DennisL: Dr L - that's my big brother :-)
Superintendent Latschar: (OK, I'll be nice.) Yes, we have the "authority" to condemn land
within the boundary of the park, and we could use it to stop a "RR."
However, we need money from Congress in order to condemn land, and we need
to notify Congress when we plan to do so, which means we need a darn good
reason before we take that drastic step.
JackL: thank you, sir.
Murph: Dr. Lasher About how long of a time frame are we looking at to
accomplish the restoration of this area? In terms of years?
Superintendent Latschar: Since all the new facilities have to be built (so we can move in)
before any of the old ones get torn down, my best guess is that we can
start removing the old buildings and restoring Cemetery Ridge in about 4-5
years.
Murph: thanks..
DaveM: Dr. L, Thank you for this opportunity! One of my biggest
concerns is not being able to stop something that is
completely against what we are devoted to. i.e. the Electric Trolley
up to the RR Cut disaster. I know that these things were not
on your watch. But, seeing that they have happened in the past,
and the need *not* to let things like this happen again,
just what time frames are we looking at between the GMP, Public
meetings and full endorsement of the final decision?
Superintendent Latschar: The toughest question I ever get, is "how can you trust the agency
that gave you the RR cut." I can't answer that, any more than I can prove
when I stopped beating my wife. I can only guarantee to everyone that
there's no one in the world who loves this place more than I do. I'll do
my absolute best to make sure that everything we do is done appropriately
and tastefully.
GuyG: Yes. Thank you
Superintendent Latschar: #1 - From 15 & 97, you would be able to see the back (east) side of
BRT, if Boyle decides to cut all the trees on his proposed lot. However,
there's nowhere on the battlefield itself, that the proposed mall will be
visible.
Superintendent Latschar: #2 - since the proposed development is outside the boundary, and
outside the Historic District, the NPS has no legal jurisdiction over what
gets built and what doesn't. That will be totally up to the local
township zoning ordinances.
Murph: Good... it would create an eyesore just as the steel tower does now...
Superintendent Latschar: According to Boyle's latest site design, none of his buildings will
be over 2 stories tall. I'm sure the township will require him to leave
some of the trees in place, as a visual barrier. I suspect that his claim
of being near the battlefield is nothing more than a marketing technique,
to get franchises to sign up and fill all the stores he wants to build.
TerryM: If I could get back to the
levan tract for just a moment...
I believe DaveM's question illustrates the largest stumbling block
to this proposal in the minds of this membership. We understand
the need for the facilities the park requires. However the cost
of these facilities seems to be the eradication of significant
terrain features (on the Levan tract), that are very germane to
the story of the battle. (Thus the allusions to the railroad cut
disaster.) What are your feelings concerning the relevance of the
Levan tract to the combat action of the Gettysburg battle. If
significant, interpretable action took place in this area how can
we justify using this land at the sacrifice of it's significant
features?
Superintendent Latschar: First, we're going to do everything we can to
pinpoint those artillery folks on the ground. Then, we'll do everything
we can to avoid their footprint. Remember, counting buildings, roads, and
parking, we only need about 15 of the 45 acres on the Levan tract.*
TerryM: I am very pleased to hear you say that Dr. Latschar, as many of the
members have also
said that a compromise that would allow interpretation of the
artillery line would be most impressive upon exit from a new VC
complex, but not only that, it would also remove a major objection
from the minds of
'many of us.
Superintendent Latschar: We've invited Richard Rollins, as well as several other noted
scholars, to come to Gettysburg in january and help us determine exactly
who was where, and when, on the Levan tract.
BroBob: I'd like to adress the monahan proposal(since he sends all his press
releases to us)
Superintendent Latschar: #2 - is true, at least according to Congressman Miller. The main
problem with #2, however, is that since he was outside the park, the NPS
would NEVER have been able to acquire the land and the VC/Museum
facilities, without a specific act of Congress.
JAL: An act of congress is easy to get if it doesn't cost anything.
The question is ,,, what is the best solution to the problem.
I don't think the RFP or Proposals cover this ground.
Superintendent Latschar: With all respect, the most dangerous thing a Federal agency can do is
to ask for specific Congressional authority in order to accomplish a
specific objective. Acts of Congress may sometimes be easy, but they're
always high-risk. Which "problem" doesn't the RFP of proposal cover?
JAL: I don't think it relates each of the requiremnents into a seamless
whole that fits within the GMP.
Superintendent Latschar: If I understand what you mean by the "problem", then the best
solution is 100% Congressional funding, or 100% donation of funds to the
NPS to solve its own problems. However, I don't think either will happen
within our lifetimes.*
JackL: Dr. L could you use a contingency fund for emergency situations ? a
private fund, with no strings attached, or do have to go to congress ?
Thank you sir, it's been an honor.
Superintendent Latschar: Yes, indeed. We have the ability to accept donations of any amount,
and we can put them into interest-bearing accounts with the National Park
Foundation. Do you know somebody I should be talking` to?
JackL: yes
Superintendent Latschar: Perhaps we should talk privately?
BroBob: Hope it doesnt entail selling mugs:)
JackL: I'll check on it...no promises...but I know of a program.
Dennis: Is there any chance the VC plan will get "unfolded" from the GMP?
Superintendent Latschar: No. For legal reasons, involving the specific requirements of
the National Environmental Policy Act, if we "unfolded" the VC plan from
the GMP, we would have to do 2 Environmental Impact Statements
Simultaneously. That would confuse everyone, for certain
Murph: Is it legal to just plain ride horseback through the park? Using the
roads and all?
Superintendent Latschar: Murph - yes, it's illegal to take horse off the marked horse trails
at the park. It's against park rules to ride horse on the roads, for
safety reasons.
DennisL:
Superintendent Latschar: #1 - 25 years from now, I see
#2 - We're very skeptical about the compelling need for new
monuments, partly because the vast majority of our current monuments were
placed by the veterans, and honored those whom the veterans themselves
thought most worthy. In addition, new monuments do add a certain element
of additional "clutter" to the battlefield.
#3 - I'm fond of saying that we've got no problems that time and
money won't solve. However, as evidenced by some of the questions posed
tonight by your esteemed members, I guess my second biggest problem is
faith and trust in the intentions and integrity of the NPS. When you all
can say, "if Latschar says so, then it must be true," then I'll be a happy
man.
Superintendent Latschar: If by the past, you mean past superintendents, I can guarantee that the answer
is YES. If you mean in the past few months, then you've got to understand that we're
in the midst of a legal process. As you know, both Monahan and Randy Harper have
filed legal protests against this proposal. Until those protests are answered (which
should be soon), the lawyers won't let me say everything I know. Stay tuned,
however, cause I can guarantee that more info's coming.
JimL: I would like to ask about monument preservation.
Earlier this year a PA state rep
was talking about getting
other states to maintain their
own monuments.
Do you know if GNMP or anyone
else has prepared an informational
package for distribution to
legislators in other states?
Superintendent Latschar: To date, he's got responses from about half a dozen. If you'd like a copy of
the booklet, you can ask either Redshaw's office, or Katie Lawhon here at the park.
JimL: Thanks
Superintendent Latschar: If anyone out there would like either myself or a park person to come out and
speak to your roundtable, reenactment units, etc., about Gettysburg, or this specific
proposal, please let us know. We're anxious to talk to as many folks as we possible.
can.
Kerry: Well the Australian Round Table appreciates that B-)
SteveL: Would you be able to travel to Philadelphia?
Superintendent Latschar: Thanks dennisl and brothers, and esteemed members. It's been interesting -
would you guess this is my very first experience at on-line chatting?
tilt: JohnL, how can I contact you. We are having a CW symposium in the Chicago area
next april. you would be welcome.
Superintendent Latschar: Stevel - I have to travel to Philly all the time, cause that's where my boss
lives. Call katie Lawhon, to see when we can get together.
Superintendent Latschar: tilt - Scott Hartwig from our staff is coming to Chicago next spring.
Superintendent Latschar: Thanks all. The best of the holiday season to everyone. Good night.
Once removed the features of the terrain can never be accurately
restored.
How do you perceive
the threat to significant combat terrain
versus the need to have the facilities the partnership can provide?
Dr. L In a trade publication dedicated to Outlet malls
Developer Greg Boyle has boasted how his proposed mall at 15 and 97
will be squarely in the viewshed of the park (esp LRT and BRT)
My question is does the NPS know this, and if so is there anything
that can be done about this if it will be true. Thank you
it is my understaning that the problems with his proposal were
1. Problems with getting visitors to the park
2. The fact that being it was out of the park would require
congressional approval
3. Concern that there would be no buffer bewteen the new VC and his
commercial development.
I am especially curious as to whether #2 is true 1, What is your vision of the park 25 years from now?
2. What is
your philosophy regarding new monuments?
3. Other than the budget, what is
your biggest problem and what are you doing to solve it?
#1 - (a) a new VC/Museum that tells the
story of the Gettysburg Campaign within the context of the cause s and
consequences of the Civil War.
DaveM: Dr L, Thank you very much for your time and now your extended time
with us tonight. I was hoping to make one simple point that
has caused distress about disclosing facts on the VC and other
points of this plan. Cyberlife, like real life has rumors and
probably more so. I and I think many of us were very dissapointed
with the NPS not disclosing things that are known to them. It was
more the "I can't tell you" attitude, than the "at this time, we
just don't know" that really threw some wrenches into our way of
thinking. I appreciate your answer to my previous question, but can
we expect the NPS to be more open with what it does/doesn't know?
(b) I see all the historic structure (98) and monuments (1400) in
ti-tope condition, and
(c) I see the battleifleld landscapes restored to
their 1863 appearances.