> >The NPS has backed off the "deal," now saying they have only chosen this firm to "negotiate with."

>I contact with Calif. congressman George Miller, decrying the concept of putting ANY commercial development WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES of Gettysburg National Military Park. This is just unacceptable! (Especially a 9-story IMAX theater plus shops, fast food joints, etc., etc.--which WOULD be acceptable under the agreement.) They could/should also write Boxer & Feinstein with the same message, as well as their OWN congressman, if they live outside Miller's district. You could help by running the appropriate addresses (including e-mail) in YOUR newsletter. >

>The protest is aimed at the CONCEPT of ANY private development on the battlefield. Ask the Congressmen and Senators to tell the Park Service to back up and start over--deal with someone for a new visitor/center museum on Park property if they want, but do NOT allow private, commercial development on the battlefield. >Thanks for your help and that of your RT. >

The Big Con continues tomorrow with an NPS news conference to announce the successful bidder on the private-public partnership with Gettysburg National Military Park to build a new visitor center/museum at the battlefield. Once the announcement is made, THEN a period of Public Comment will open and that's where you come in. But there is still some background information you should know.

1) The owner of the property (the Levan tract) upon which Kinsley (the "successful" bidder) proposes to build this $47 million development, including a 90,000 sq ft visitor center/museum, a bus terminal, a 9 story IMAX theater, plus a string of shops--souvenir outlets, fast food outlets, etc., etc., etc., ad nauseam, has declined to allow the news conference to be held on that property BECAUSE KINSLEY NOT ONLY DOESN'T OWN THE PROPERTY YET, THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE A CONTRACT TO BUY IT. They submitted this bid WITHOUT OWNING THE LAND. Lawsuits are reportedly in the wings, anxious to get on stage. The Park Service has really poo-poooed in their mess kit this time, and the pile keeps getting deeper with every passing day. They're going to "announce" the "successful" bidder tomorrow, even tho' Park Service Director Bob Stanton has NOT YET DECIDED whether this process has been properly conducted thus far.

WHAT'S THE HURRY, GUYS????

I continue to urge all of you to contact your Members of Congress. (See last night's message, and this afternoon's message. WE CAN STOP THIS TRAVESTY IF WE ALL PULL TOGETHER.

I also continue to be disheartened when I receive CWRT news letters that DON'T have preservation news in them. Most of the RT newsletters I've gotten in the past few weeks DON'T EVEN MENTION MANASSAS OR GETTYSBURG, and the serious problems besetting both battlefields.

We who study must also strive to save!

JERRY RUSSELL
jlrussell@aristotle.net

FROM CIVIL WAR ROUND TABLE ASSOCIATES & HERITAGEPAC: RE THE CONTINUING GETTYSBURG CON

Congress has adjourned (recessed?) for the rest of the year, but that's no reason not to contact your Senators and Representatives regarding the latest fiasco at Gettysburg NATIONAL MILITARY PARK.

As you all know, the National Park Service held a news conference last Friday, 11/7.

At that news conference, NPS handed out an "overview" of all the proposals, and "discussed" the "relative merits" of each, before announcing the chosen one.

This was done without first notifying the bidders it was to be done; none of the other bidders were even told ahead of time as a courtesy, although the "overview" HAD been shared, in confidence, with certain Members of Congress. Thus, the general public (and selected Members) was made aware of the NPS evaluation of the proposals before the bidders were. This, at a minimum, shows a basic lack of courtesy and seems unprofessional.

More importantly, relevant information seems to have been omitted from the "overview" discussion: for instance, one of the bidders had received letters of support from the Gettysburg Battlefield Preservation Association and the Association for the Preservation of Civil War Sites, and proposed to involve Borough of Gettysburg to a significant degree. (Not that these items should have given preference to that bidder; I'm just pointing out that they weren't mentioned.)

The Kinsley proposal notes that this project is "his gift to America," but he wants America (you and me) to help pay for the "gift" (half). Mr. Kinsley may well be an honorable man, and may even mean that about the "gift,", but Nat'l Geographic (i.e. Destination Cinema and Nat'l Geographic Television) has been involved in this project much longer than Kinsley. He in essence is a vehicle, picked up relatively late in the game, for the non-profit umbrella of the Nat'l Geo enterprise, which is to have the Visitor Center/Museum serve basically as an ante room for the IMAX theater.

People like you and me will be asked to donate money for "the visitor center,", but what they/we will be doing is paying for the infrastructure of a profit -making enterprise, with the non-profit Museum as an appendage.

Thus the NPS is saying, "We'll let you use the battlefield land to show your movies, sell your merchandise, food, and bus tours, if you let us put our 'free' museum and visitor center next to it.

"You, successful bidder, will collect the money for the attractions and reap the profits of the commercial enterprises, and we, the Park Service, will look like heroes for getting a 'free' visitor center."

Where is the preservation of the artifacts and archives?

Where is the education?

Where is the sanctity of the battlefield land, deemed by Congress and the NPS to be "significant" to the interpretation of the most famous battle in American history?

If the total cost is $43 million, to include the IMAX et al (HALF of which is to come from your donations and mine), just what sort of museum facility will you HAVE?

The numbers don't add up.

Something the NPS has not articulated is the apparently-built-in bias of the process, which is to say a truly non-profit venture never had a chance to begin with. The issuance of the proposal was inordinately delayed; an extension was granted with no firm basis and allowed the two bidders who requested that extension an unfair competitive advantage (the other proposals were already in...were they shared?); the NPS was, to be kind, *misleading* about the 10/15 USA TODAY article, telling us it was "not true" when we know now that the internal mechanisms that were already in place, and Senators and Congressmen were already being "briefed." It WAS true.

This would suggest that the outcome was essentially wired from the beginning.....?????

This process to date has not been what's best for the Battlefield or the "collection," but what's best for the National Park Service. (One Park Service official was quoted as saying that the Kinsley proposal was the "best" one "for the National Park Service.") It's "the art of the deal".

The process seems to have been tainted, mismanaged, and presented to the public in a fashion lacking professionalism, and honor, and unworthy of the National Park Service, the Congress it purportedly answers to, and the people it purportedly serves--but not untypical of previous conduct involving the Rape of Seminary Ridge.

Kinsley has reportedly retained a high powered DC public relations firm (as did Disney, but, it is to be hoped, NOT the same one).

Also, Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) and Sen. Slade Gorton (R-WA) were given tours Thursday by the NPS, to include the LeVan property. At least one of the other bidders planned to file a formal Letter of Protest Friday, and another has threatened suit over the process.

What is happening here is basically this: The NPS is enamored with National Geographic. Note that on the Kinsley extension request is on their letterhead, but it is also signed by the President of National Geographic Television. They have been involved in this longer than Kinsley. Nat'l Geo picked up Kinsley as their local builder; they were hurting because their site options were extremely limited. When Tom Metz, operator of Gettysburg Tours and a part of Kinsley's "team", became aware of the LeVan property, they immediately tried to tie it up. In their (delayed) proposal, Kinsley claimed "full control" of the property, but this is simply not true. LeVan's attorney gave Kinsley the exact same letter he provided to other bidders.

Mr. LeVan is the key here--if he's not comfortable with the overall concept and strategy, he simply won't sell. He apparently has always been honorable in his dealings, and I'm told that he and his family have the best interests of the Battlefield at heart.

The question is really not the site, but what goes on it and how it is run.

Under the Kinsley/Nat'l Geo plan, donors like you and me, as well as corporations who MIGHT be persuaded to contribute to battlefield preservation, will pay for the infrastructure for a commercial, for-profit enterprise. (National Geographic Television and Destination Cinema are for-profit affiliates of The National Geographic Society, and benefit greatly from the Society's good name and work around the world.)

But, Gettysburg is not Mount Everest, it is not the Grand Canyon, it is not a magazine, and it is not a video. The money they are asking you and me and others to shell out is money which wouldn't be available for the acqusition of hallowed ground elsewhere. And, it's money THEY won't have to spend to get their for-profit operation up and running.

With bond financing or private financing, both of which have been proposed, contributory funding (by us) wouldn't be needed.

We understand the Friends of the National Parks at Gettysburg plan to seek "input" from their members before "taking a stand." But it appears that all the Friends are doing is distributing the information they received from the NPS . Members are being asked to comment on information that does not neccesarily present a true or complete picture of what's going on. If the Friends merely are a distribution source for the NPS line, and don't foster healthy debate on all the facts, this is a disservice to the vast majority of their membership which does good work for the Battlefield.

But then, they have proven in the past to be pretty much a "This is our story and we're sticking to it!" kind of group, at least at the "leadership level."

The BEST way to get to the bottom of this is to ask for a Congressional investigation.

You can/should start with YOUR Senators (c/o U.S. Senate, Washington DC 20510) and YOUR Representative (c/o House of Representatives, Washington DC 20515). They've "gone home" for the time being, but their Washington offices are still staffed, and they WILL get your mail. (If you know the address of their office "back home," that's even better. OR, you can call 202-224-3121 in Washington, ask for the Member's office, and tell whoever answers that you are a constitutuent, and you're calling to urge that a Congressional investigation be launched to examine this whole Gettysburg public-private partnership process before America's premier Civil War battlefield is sacrificed on the altar of profit. Finally, of course, you can get YOUR Senators' and Representative's e-mail address and contact them that way.)

You should also make your thoughts known to Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) >senator@santorum.senate.gov<, Sen. Slade Gorton (R-WA)>gorton@gorton.senate.gov<, Sen. Dale Bumpers (D-ARK)>senator@bumpers.senate.gov<, Rep. George Miller (D-CAL)>gmiller@hr.house.gov<, and Rep. Ralph Regula (R-OH) (no e-mail). They occupy important positions in the Congressional leadership particularly in relation to Gettysburg and the National Park Service.

Please pass this message along to as many people you can reach whom you know to be committed to the protection and preservation of Civil War battlefields.

THE FUTURE OF GETTYSBURG--AND ITS MILLIONS OF VISITORS IN YEARS TO COME-- DEPENDS ON *YOU*!!!

WE WHO STUDY MUST ALSO STRIVE TO SAVE!!!

JERRY RUSSELL