Chat With Dr. Latschar- December 22, 1997


Session Start: Mon Dec 22 19:55:13 1997

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 Superintendent Latschar: All four proposals were evaluated across the board against all ten criteria in the RFP, in order to figure out which was the best"over-all" proposal. Does that answer the question?

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.
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?

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
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

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)
it is my understaning that the problems with his proposal were


I am especially curious as to whether #2 is true

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

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?

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.