Hi GDG,
I recently asked a local Gettysburg reporter to post a synopsis of the events leading up to the visitors center proposal. The following was written by Mr. Terry Burger. I wish to first make a few points...
1. I, nor Mr. Burger, have any vested interest in any site selected.
2. Mr. Burger is, IMHO and others locally, one on the (if not the) best objective reporters in the area.
3. Mr. Burger is doing this for the education of the group at my suggestion. We only want to provide further information that some of you may not have.
4. Mr. Burger fully understands that traditionally, TYPING IN CAPS IS SHOUTING! I assure you he is not shouting. He only wants to easily differentiate his personal, non-published observations from those that have appeared in print.
5. This is a rather long post. If all of it does not make it, someone let me know and I will send it (if there is interest) as an attachment in text form or ask the good brothers Lawrence if they want to post it to the GDG website.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Humbly,
Kevin Trostle
Gettysburg PA
IN RESPONSE TO A REQUEST, I SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING , A TIME LINE I PUT TOGETHER FOR OUR NEWSPAPER, ALONG WITH SEGMENTS FROM EARLIER STORIES. NOTES THAT ARE PERSONAL ASIDES AND NOT PART OF ANY NEWS ARTICLES WILL BE IN ALL CAPS.
PLEASE NOTE THAT I WORK OUT OF MY HOME FIVE MILES SOUTH OF THE BATTLEFIELD AND TRANSMIT THEM TO THE NEWSROOM BY MODEM. THESE ARE, THEREFORE, UNEDITIED VERSIONS OF THE STORIES AND ARE THEREFORE PROBABLY NOT EXACTLY THE VERSIONS THAT APPEARED IN THE NEWSPAPER.
I AM NOT FORMALLY A MEMBER OF THIS GROUP OR, I CONFESS, MUCH OF A CIVIL WAR ENTHUSIAST. I HOPE I AM NOT BREACHING ANY ETIQUETTE BY “DONATING” THESE ITEMS. IF I AM, PLEASE ACCEPT MY APOLOGIES.
JUST A NOTE: COVERAGE OF THESE ISSUES BY SOME MEMBERS OF MY PROFESSION HAS BEEN FILLED WITH HINTS AND WHISPERS REGARDING ALLEGED AND IMPENDING WRONGDOINGS, CONSPIRACIES, ETC., THE INFORMATION FROM WHICH CAME FROM UNNAMED SOURCES. OUR NEWSPAPER’S POLICY IS THAT WE WILL NOT USUALLY ALLOW UNATTRIBUTED STATEMENTS, OUR EDITOR BELIEVING IT IS ALL TOO EASY TO GO “SNIPING” FROM THE CONCEALMENT OF ANONYMITY.
I HOPE YOU FIND THESE USEFUL AND INFORMATIVE.
TERRY W. BURGER,
GETTYSBURG, PA.
Late 1994, the Gettysburg National Military Park administration identified long-term goals for the preservation of park resources and the improvement of visitor interpretation/education capabilities.
January, 1995: NPS Director Roger Kennedy, convinced funds to solve deficiencies in park facilities would not be forthcoming from Congress, approved the concept of exploring a public-private partnership.
March, 1995, Gettysburg/Hanover developer Robert J. Monahan proposes to build new park service facilities, along with an IMAX theater, on the former Fantasyland site on the Taneytown Road.
MONAHAN MET IN THE RESTAURANT OF THE GETTYSBURG HOTEL ON LINCOLN SQUARE WITH LATSCHAR AND WITH LARRY AND ANGELA ROSENSTEEL ECKARD. ANGIE’S FATHER FOUNDED THE ROSENTSTEEL COLLECTION, WHICH PROVIDED THE CORE OF THE GETTYSBURG NATIONAL MILITARY PARK’S CIVIL WAR MUSEUM. THE ROSENSTEEL MUSEUM, SINCE EXPANDED 14 TIMES, IS NOW THE VISITOR CENTER.
April, 1995 the park began a public planning process that eventually covered a year and involved a total of seven public meetings and three separate review periods, totalling 140 days of review. The result planning process was the draft "Development Concept Plan/Environmental Assessment (DCP) for the Collections Storage, Visitor & Museum Facilities" at GNMP.
EARLY MARCH, 1995, FROM THE EVENING SUN:
The man behind the Maryland monument plans quarterly meetings in Gettysburg
GETTYSBURG - James A. Holechek...spearheaded an effort that saw the erection and dedication last year of a $200,000 monument to Marylanders who fought at Gettysburg. Following that he launched an effort to purchase and remove the 307-foot National Tower, garnering a pledge almost immediately from Controlled Demolition Inc. of Phoenix to dismantle the $6.6 million structure.
Last month, however, Holechek decided that he was dropping plans to pull down the tower and put up a low-profile education center. The entrepreneur had run into opposition from locals who reasoned that since the 20-year-old tower brings in around $100,000 in tax revenues annually, beauty is in the eye of the collector.
The final blow came from the National Park Service, who informed Holechek that the pot of money he and they were seeking to milk for funding were too small for both.... funding to build a Civil War museum and a new home for the famous cyclorama painting.
April-August, 1995: Outrage over behind-the-scenes negotiations between Monahan, GNMP Supt. Dr. John Latschar and others increases, as does opposition to their “partnership” plan. Later, Latschar admits the secret negotiations were a mistake.
Sept., 1995: NPS puts plans for new museum as envisioned by Monahan, on hold. Announces plans to hold series of public meetings to assess the park’s needs regarding new facilities. The first meeting was held in Nov. (FROM A STORY THAT APPEARED 9/2/95): GETTYSBURG - Proposed plans to enter a partnership with a local businessman and build a new Civil War museum and theater are on hold pending further planning and feedback, the superintendent of the Gettysburg battlefield park said Friday.
"The proposal offered in April will not be considered, nor will any other, until an in-depth planning process with full public participation can be accomplished", said Dr. John A. Latschar in a prepared statement. "The NPS will not pursue or endorse, at this time, any proposal for development of a museum or other visitor facilities, whether on or off NPS lands."
Latschar also said reports in local media detailing a supposed deal between the National Park Service and the Gettysburg-based Monahan group and involving Adams County's planned business park have "absolutely no basis in fact."
Latschar, who has headed the Gettysburg National Military Park for about a year, spoke at a press conference held at the Cyclorama building on park grounds.
Latschar had been in Washington earlier in the week to meet with NPS Director Roger Kennedy to discuss a proposal from Gettysburg businessman Robert J. Monahan Jr. to place a group of buildings on NPS-owned ground on the Taneytown Road to house the 38,000 artifacts that make up the National Museum of the Civil War and the famous Cyclorama painting.
He would also build an IMAX theater on the site. Monahan would develop the entire project, using some of his own capital and about $10 million in donations to be raised in a nationwide campaign by the non-profit organization.
NOTE: MONAHAN SAYS HIS ORIGINAL PLAN WOULD HAVE PUT LESS COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON ‘HALLOWED GROUND’ THAN THE PROPOSAL THE NPS HAS ACCEPTED.
The NPS would own and run the museum, while Monahan would operate the theater and assorted concessions over the period of a long-term Memorandum of Agreement. At the end of that time - unofficial estimate run between 50 and 70 years - the entire facility would revert to the NPS.
Last week, Monahan verified that he was also considering the same kind of arrangement for roughly 100 acres at the 282-acre Adams Commerce Park site at the intersection of U.S. Routes 30 and 15. Then, as now, both the NPS and Monahan have said no formal proposal has been made to the NPS regarding the ACC site.
Contrary to press reports made elsewhere, (MORE UNATTRIBUTED SOURCES)
Monahan said Tuesday he did not take part in the discussions between
Latschar and Kennedy, had not been invited to go, and had not asked to
go.....Latschar said the NPS was going to take "a step back" and reengage
the planning process which had been grinding along since the proposal had
first been made. He said the NPS wanted to "work with the public to ensure
that we know
April and May, 1996: NPS presents Draft Development Plan, the end result of
months of study, to look at options for new facilities. The agency
eventually chose as its favorite t “Option D,” which proposes an entirely
new visitor center and museum complex, featuring an auditorium, permanent
and temporary museum galleries, new home for the cyclorama painting, and
other facilities. Price tag: $43 million, with operation and maintenance
estimated at about $1 million annually.
December, 1996: NPS releases Requests For Proposals for the project, with a
120-day deadline. Five days before the expiration date, the deadline was
extended by 30 days at the request of York-area developer Robert Kinsley.
ACTUALLY, LEMOYNE LLC OUT OF BALTIMORE IS ALSO SUPPOSED TO HAVE REQUESTED
THE EXTENSION. NEVERTHELESS, BOTH MONAHAN AND RANDY HARPER OF THE MCGORRISK
GROUP HAVE SAID, THE EXTENSION WAS IMPROPER.
JULY, 1996: (FROM THE EVENING SUN):
No secret land deal in works vs. NPS and anybody, Latschar says
GETTYSBURG - The superintendent of the two national parks here said there
is no secret land swap, or any other kind of land swap, in the works
between the National Park Service, the Borough of Gettysburg, and/or The
American Legion post in Gettysburg.
Dr. John A. Latschar was responding to a question from Gettysburg resident
Mary J. Frealing at the quarterly meeting of the Gettysburg National
Military Park Advisory Committee Thursday night.
The question came after another resident had made reference to a disastrous
1990 swap between the NPS and Gettysburg College that eventually ended up
as the topic of a Congressional investigation.
The National Park Service has a whole lot of new rules concerning such
matters, Latschar said, adding that no such deal could be consummated
without extensive public hearings.
He said the NPS had been asked if it would be interested in sharing some
office space in the American Legion building, which Adams County is
currently looking at with an eye toward purchasing for additional office
space.
NOTE: THE LEGION BUILDING IS NEXT DOOR TO THE COURTHOUSE.
NEGOTIATIONS ARE ONGOING WITH THE COUNTY, BUT APPARENTELY NOT WITH THE NPS.
“We told them `thank you, no,' “Latschar said.
May, 1997: NPS announces that information about the proposers will not be
released until after one of them is chosen. Federal regulations are cited
as the reason. Members of the panel that will make recommendations to the
director of the NPS are announced. All are NPS administrators, none is from
the Gettysburg park. THEY ARE: Chairman Michael Adlerstein, associate
regional director, NPS Northeast Region.
Steve Crabtree, assistant regional director, NPS Pacific West Region.
Caleb G. Cooper, NPS Denver Service Center.
Chuck Baerlin, Supt., Sandy Hook Unit, Gateway National Recreation Area
Rich Rambur, Supt., Lowell National Historic Park, Lowell, Mass.
Advisors to the Panel:
Lars Hanslin, Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of the Interior.
Debbie Darden, Planner, Gettysburg National Military Park.
A financial consultant from the Wharton School of Business, and a community
planning consultant from Icon Architectecture, Inc. of Boston, both under
contract with the government.
June, 1997: Review panel asks the six groups that submitted proposals for
more information.
July, 1997: Two of the groups are tossed out of consideration because they
did not meet criteria set in the RFPs.
Sept., 1997: Panel interviewed the remaining four proposers.
Oct. 1997:. After four months of analysis and evaluation, the panel
briefed the Director of the NPS and his staff. On the 15th, USA Today runs
a story claiming Kinsley had been selected to be the park service’s
partner. Within hours, the NPS had denied that any selection had been made.
ESTEEMED MEMBERS: THIS IS THE SECOND IN A SERIES OF EXCERPTS FROM NEWSPAPER
ARTICLES THAT HAVE APPEARED IN OUR NEWSPAPER ON THE NPS VISITOR
CENTER/MUSEUM TOPIC.
THE FIRST INSTALLMENT WAS ESSENTIALLY A TIME-LINE BEGINNING IN 1994.
I HOPE YOU FIND THESE USEFUL AND INFORMATIVE.
TERRY W. BURGER,
GETTYSBURG, PA.
THIS STORY RAN FRIDAY, 11/7/97 IN THE EVENING SUN:
“We had better be ready to control our destiny, and nobody had better stand
in our way to do that, including the park service. If they do, they are
not going to get their project built.” Adams County Commissioner Harry
Stokes.
By T.W. BURGER
Robert J. Monahan of Gettysburg is not surprised at confirmation that York
businessman Robert Kinsley is in fact the park service’s partner. What
puzzles him is why.
“The National Park Service went to a great deal of effort to establish a
permanent boundary for the park in 1990, with the idea of protecting
significant battlefield ground,” Monahan said Thursday night. “If if the
ground was important and in need of being saved then, why isn’t it now?” he
said. “It’s as though they waved a magic wand and now it’s not important.”
Monahan said he is “saddened” by the park service’s decision to develop a
new visitor center and museum within the park.
The NPS announced earlier today the choice of Kinsley for their new “buddy”
system, by which a private developer will build new facilities for the park
and be allowed to operate for-profit enterprises nearby.
It has been reported that approximately 25 percent of the seven acre site
on the Baltimore Pike will be devoted to commercial development, such as
restaurants and gift shops and an IMAX theater.
NOTE: LATSCHAR TOLD ME 11/7 (THE MORNING OF THE PRESS CONFERENCE WHERE
KINSLEY WAS FORMALLY NAMED AS THE NPS’S “BUDDY” IN THE PROCESS) THAT
HOWEVER TALL THE THEATER (WHICH WILL NOT NECESSARILY BE AN “IMAX,” WHICH IS
A COPYRIGHTED TECHNOLOGY, THE SLANT OF THE THEATER WILL GO DOWN INTO THE
GROUND. LATSCHAR SAID NONE OF THE NEW COMPLEX WILL BE VISIBLE FROM ANY OF
THE SIGNIFICANT BATTLEFIELD SITES, SUCH AS THE HIGH WATER MARK.
Monahan and Kinsley were two of six developers who submitted proposals to
become partners with the NPS to build the facilities, which park
administrators say are badly needed. At an estimated $43 million, the
projects are far too costly for the NPS to build itself, given current
budgetary and political realities in Washington.
Over the summer, two proposals were rejected because they did not match the
requirements of the published federal guidelines. That left the McGorrisk
Group of Texas, Lemoyne LLC of Baltimore, Kinsley and The Monahan Group of
Gettysburg.
Kinsley has steadfastly refused to return reporters’ calls. The Baltimore
and Texas groups, like Kinsley, apparently proposed building inside the
6,000 acre park, a concept that horrifies the vast and vocal national
community of Civil War enthusiasts.
Monahan’s proposal calls for the entire new complex to be build at the
intersection of US Routes 30 and 15. The site is one which the
Gettysburg-Hanover developer... already plans to develop with a convention
center, IMAX theater and other attractions....Monahan’s (/ORIGINAL 1995)
plan died largely because of complaints from historic preservationists, and
the concerns of some local businesses and residents.
One of those residents is Dr. Beverly Stanton, a biology and sociology
teacher in the Harrisburg area. She lives near both sites.
“This one I like a little bit better, but not a lot,” she said. “I think
the Baltimore Pike will be able to withstand the traffic better than the
Taneytown Rd. I would rather have it off the battlefield area, but I guest
they will pretty much do what they want to do.”
As far as Stanton is concerned, the park service’s iron grip on what can be
developed on private property within the park’s formal boundary has just
been loosened.
“If they can put commercial development there, then the government will no
longer be able to tell people here what they can do with their property,”
she said.
On the issue of the site, she said in the final analysis, she could
probably live with it.
“The land’s been here for a lot longer than you and I, and it will be here
when we’re gone,” she said. “And then they’ll be fighting over something
else.”
The traffic problem the new site will create promises to be interesting.
Between the proposed site and Route 15 is the entrance to a sand and
gravel quarry, a proposed black granite quarry, and, just on the other side
of 15, a huge proposed outlet mall.
Adams County Commissioner Harry Stokes said Thursday he wants to be sure
traffic and other issues are addressed properly.
“Now is the time for local governments, municipal and county, to have a
role in the decision,” he said. “I intend to make sure from our point of
view that it happens.”
Stokes said the NPS has to help local governments understand and prepare
for the kinds of impacts the choice will have.
“We had better be ready to control our destiny, and nobody had better stand
in our way to do that, including the park service,” he said. “If they do,
they are not going to get their project built.”
Monahan predicted a strong response from the Civil War community to the
choice. Indeed, that has already happened. Civil War “chat rooms” on the
Internet are filling with dire warnings and calls to action - many of them
based on erroneous information.
“This is not about Monahan and Kinsley,” Monahan said. “This is about
location.”
“The Park Service, steward of this national treasure, is, in effect,
becoming an accomplice to rape,” wrote Jerry L. Russell of Arkansas, a
member of a Civil War roundtable and political consultant. “You can help.
contact your friends, and members of your Civil War group and implore them
to contact their members of Congress.... tell the Senators and Congress
that you adamantly and vigorously oppose commercial development within the
boundaries of America’s premier Civil War Battlefield.”***
ESTEEMED MEMBERS: THIS IS THE THIRD IN A SERIES OF EXCERPTS FROM NEWSPAPER
ARTICLES THAT HAVE APPEARED IN OUR NEWSPAPER ON THE NPS VISITOR
CENTER/MUSEUM TOPIC.
THE FIRST INSTALLMENT WAS ESSENTIALLY A TIME-LINE BEGINNING IN 1994.
THE SECOND INSTALLMENT WAS A REACTION PIECE THAT RAN ON THE AFTERNOON OF
THE DAY ROBERT KINSLEY OF YORK, PA. (ABOUT 30 MILES FROM GETTYSBURG) WAS
FORMALLY GIVEN THE NOD BY THE NPS AT A PRESS CONFERENCE AT THE CYCLORAMA
CENTER.
THE REACTION PIECE WAS A SIDEBAR TO AN EXCELLENT PIECE WRITTEN BY ANOTHER
OF OUR REPORTERS. I AM TRYING TO GET HER TO EMAIL ME A COPY OF THAT STORY,
AS I DON’T HAVE TIME TO RETYPE IT FOR YOU. IF I GET IT, YOU’LL GET IT.
11/07/97
Civil War enthusiast Jim Cameron of Long island has been keeping a sharp
eye on email postings over the Internet, reading carefully some of the
attacks already launched against a National Park Service plan to build new
visitor facilities on the battlefield.
“The sound of axes grinding is getting very loud,” Cameron said Friday
afternoon.
Cameron said he did not know whether he was for or against a plan by York
businessman Robert Kinsley to “buddy up” with the NPS to build a
multi-million-dollar museum and visitor center complex on the site, with
about 25 percent of the seven acre site given over to small commercial
vendors.
“I haven’t seen anything yet,” he said. “I want to see something specific
before I man the barricades. A lot of this is coming from people who don’t
want to see a blade of grass cut.”
National Park Service officials announced Friday morning in Gettysburg that
Kinsley would construct the $40 million-plus visitor
center/museum/cyclorama center complex on seven acres of a 45 acre plot off
Route 97.
Kinsley said his winning proposal will be within the park boundary, but not
on ground significant to the battle.
He also said he will make little profit from the project.
“I may be in danger here of putting my heart before my head,” he said.
Kinsley, as Kinsley Equities and Kinsley Construction, was given the nod
officially at 2 p.m. Thursday by National Park Service Director Robert
Stanton.
The winning proposal put together by Kinsley will involve National
Geographic Television, Destination Cinemas, Gettysburg Tours, Inc., Zeidler
Roberts Partnership and John L. Adams, Inc.
The park service began the process of looking for “partners” to help it
replace its aging and inadequate facilities in December, when requests for
proposals were released nationally. Six groups responded; Kinsley,
Gettysburg-Hanover developer Robert J. Monahan Jr., the McGorrisk Group of
Dallas, Texas, Lemoyne LCC of Baltimore, and two others whose proposals
were culled over the summer because they did not meet the criteria
established by the NPS.
Monahan and the other two finalists were officially informed yesterday
evening that their proposals had not been accepted.
The choice had been unofficially out since Oct. 15, when USA Today ran a
story announcing that the park service had chosen Kinsley. The agency’s
official reaction was to “neither confirm nor deny” the reports.
Sundry NPS spokespersons said the choice was not made until Stanton penned
his name on the dotted line.
Kinsley intends to build a visitor center, museum and cyclorama complex, a
bookstore operated by a non-profit organization, an orientation theater,
large format cinema, a National Geographic store, tour center, park
offices, archives and other amenities, all in one building.
Only about seven acres will actually be used for the $40 million to $45
million project. The remainder will be kept in “pristine” condition.
The site is not far from the park’s current facilities, and sits
back-to-back with the old Fantasyland property. Fantasyland is where
Gettysburg-Hanover businessman Robert J. Monahan Jr. proposed, in 1995, to
build new facilities for the NPS and operate an IMAX theater.
That proposal sank, because of pressure from neighbors, local businesses
and preservationists, who shuddered to think of commercial development on
park ground.
Monahan, who was one of the unsuccessful competitors for the updated
concept, finds Kinsley’s success ironic.
“I initiated the process 3 1/2 hears ago,” he said. “My proposal had less
commercial activity that the proposal that was accepted. Secondly the issue
back then was the issue of location and its impact on hallowed ground and
its’ impact on the “viewshed” of the battlefield. The issue of location was
paramount then and continues to be paramount today.”
Cameron said for that reason alone, Monahan’s proposal has become a “holy
grail” among some in the Civil War community, even though most of them know
nothing more about the Monahan proposal other than it calls for
construction outside the park.
Monahan said he would not speak on the issue of possible legal challenges
until he had been briefed by the park service as to why he was not chosen.
“I can assure you, though, that this will not be the last time you write
about this one,” he said. “I’m sure there will be some legal actions filed
by some of the other bidders.
Randy Harper, whose McGorrisk Group is also in the “also ran” column, has
also been quoted in the past saying “this is not over.”
He said it again Friday.
“We want to do what we feel we must do,” he said. “The way this has been
handled, we must respond, because of events that have taken place.”
Harper noted that Kinsley says he has control of the property on which he
plans to build. That was one of the conditions of the NPS request for
proposals. On Friday, Kinsley said he had a letter of intent for the
property stating that if his group got the project, the owners would sell
it.
Kinsley also said Harper’s McGorrisk Group and a similar agreement with the
property owner.
Monahan says he is not sure that meets the legal requirement of “control.”
Harper shares Monahan’s skepticism.
“In April, when (Kinsley) asked for an extension of the 120-day deadline,
he said he had control of the site. They didn’t have it then. They don’t
have it now. The only person who has control of that site is the property
owner.”
Harper was furious to learn that at Friday morning’s press conference,
included in the press packets were summations of the selection committee’s
reasons why the three losing proposers were not selected. Both Monahan and
Harper said they had not yet been given that information.
“I’m startled,” said Harper. “The fact that they would release that
information without notifying the bidders in unconscionable. This is
unprofessional, certainly....If they want this to be a model for future
endeavors, the country needs to rethink the role of the National Park
Service in the process.”
Harper promised that “the country and the Congress will hear about this.”
Congress is already listening.
On Friday, Democratic Rep. George Miller of California, a ranking member of
the House Resources Committee, issued a press release stating that he
“continues to have reservations about the ...proposal at Gettysburg because
of the threat that commercialization poses to our parks.”
Miller had written Interior Secretary Bruce Babbit in Sept., listing
similar concerns
“I do not necessarily oppose public-private partnerships in the national
parks, or deny that some sort of a new facility at Gettysburg is needed.
But what the park service is proposing at Gettysburg is inappropriate in
both scope and form,” Miller wrote.
Jim Cameron, meanwhile, is keeping an open mind on the subject. For one
thing, he said, while the Kinsley proposal will put new construction on
so-far untouched battlefield ground, the project will see the removal of
structures from the area of the High Water Mark.
“A lot of people are forgetting that part of the plus and minus equation,”
he said. “I hate to see the way this is going. People are being urged to be
against it, when many times they don’t even know what the plan is. In a
sense, it almost doesn’t matter what the plan really is.”***
<<