Northern Virginian here to say that this is ridiculous. NEAR a site does not equal ON a site, especially if it cannot be seen from the preserved area. The proposed Wal-Mart site is actually further from the battlefield than a McDonalds and a gas station that have already been built. The boundaries of the site were liberally set a long time ago, and Wal-Mart is outside of them. If you take a site, give it a buffer zone, and then say that any construction needs a buffer zone FROM THE BUFFER ZONE, no one will ever build anything again.

"[...]though we hope preservationists avoid the temptation to stage a reenactment as part of their new battle."

You got that sentence all wrong, buddy. Shouldn't it read

"[...]we are keeping our fingers crossed that the preservationists stage a reenactment as part of their new battle."

I think those officials have forgotten what damage and change a walmart can do to the surrounding environment when you factor in the area the building, parking lots, access roads cover. That coverage leads to runoff, which if it is a typical SuperWalmart can flood surrounding areas in heavy rains. That water has to go somewhere and what doesn't get pulled into storm drains will fill trenchs and low lying areas quite easily for a mile around.
Think I'm joking? I live in Port Saint Lucie where there is a Sams Club and a Walmart on the same intersection. Combined, those two land masses set up a flood of three feet that the local storm sewers couldn't handle and washed out a good portion of the roadway. If those two buildings were farther apart with more buffer area, there probably wouldn't have been such a massive flood.

Just like when Disney wanted to build a theme park dedicated to American history near Manassas. I think that it would have INCREASED interest in historical sites rather than ruined it.

Instead less than 10 years later Disney builds a theme park about California IN California. Oh, and guess who built their HQ on that land.

AOL.

Where are they now?

[www.civilwar.org]

cause visuals help more.

The people trying to save the battlefield have a legitimate concern. What Wal-Mart fails to disclose is that where Wal-Mart goes, so does traffic. They don't honestly expect that their presence will not bring increased traffic to the area and more stores? This is NOVA we're talking about - of course it will. No thanks.

BTW here's the Google Maps view of the battleground and the proposed Wal-Mart site: [maps.google.com]

The main battlefield itself is the part of the park that is up surrounding Constitution Hwy, but as you'll see the park itself would be right on Wal-Mart's doorstep.

@punkrawka: i'm a northern virginian. i went to high school in that area. you're ridiculous for suggesting that a 38,000-square-foot Supercenter and all the accompanying parking lot, roads, etc. is comparable to McDonalds and a gas station. Also for suggesting that we have to let Walmart have its way because otherwise no one will ever build anything again. Exaggerate much?

@Chumas:
Your comment made me question the article, because it says they're building a 38,000 sq ft Supercenter. 38,000 sq ft is 1/3 the size of a supercenter. The Walmart that is being built is 138,000 sq ft. Runoff is a concern, but that is why most localities require any new development project to deal with its runoff. I'm sure there will be retention ponds that can handle significant rainfall.

@Elcheecho: I'm not saying that Wal-Mart in particular must have its way, I'm saying that if you designate a buffer zone and everyone agrees to it, and then you say that development must have a buffer for the buffer zone, then maybe a buffer-buffer-buffer zone, you will never get anything built. Wal-Mart as the particular developer is irrelevant and should be treated the same as everyone else.

How can they call it "a nationally significant ... historic site" if nobody has ever heard of it? Doesn't the definition of 'historic' include the part about being well-known?

Still, I'll take Civil War nerds over yet another sticky (why are they always so sticky inside!?) Wal-Mart.

Actually the proposed Walmart isn't even visible on the map you linked to it is north of it, try this one instead:

[maps.google.com]

The Walmart site is that dark green area just north of the intersection where it says "Wilderness".

I looked at that intersection in street view and on the Walmart side of the road there is already a gas station, Wachovia Bank & small shopping center. On the other side of the road (closer to the battlefield) is another gas station, a McDonalds & another shopping plaza (plus another commercial building I can't read the sign for).
If those businesses *closer* than the Walmart were allowed, why shouldn't the Walmart be allowed?

@Skankingmike: It would help more if it showed the other commercial buildings already at that intersection rather than implying the Walmart would be the first & only business there.

@Elcheecho: Are we still considering Fredericksburg Northern Virginia? I no longer live in VA, but I'm all for an annexation. Nancy Pfotenhauer had no idea how close she hit to home.

@Pixel: oh I was just getting the map.

Honestly they don't' have an argument since there is already lots of commercial around that area as well as a developer has come in and built a development right on the site.

If anything maybe the civil war actors can be sponsored by Walmart :P

THE SOUTH SHALL RISE AGAIN WITH NEW LOW PRICES!

@Pixel: Oops, this should have been a reply to saya above.

@punkrawka:

I think anyone that has a Walmart close to them can attest: the trash in the area goes up a lot, as people eat their food, throw away the wrappers, bottles, etc...teenagers come in and hang out in the parking lot looking for trouble to get into...plastic bags blow away from people...traffic goes up a ton in the area, putting more pollutants in the air, water, etc...you get the noise pollution from the stereos, cars, motorcycles etc. A mile really isn't that far, considering.

According to the map, it's over 2 miles away from the former Confederate trenches. As these monuments tend to always pay homage to the losers, I'm not sure that the Federal trenches are that big of a deal. Of course, God help Wal MArt if Jeb Stuart, REL or Stonewall Jackson took a leak in one of those trenches. They'll need to plate it in gold and rope it off forever.

Besides, you can get replica civil war era trenches at Wal-Mart for $8.99 each. They'll give them away for free to everyone in the town.

Who cares if you can see the WalMart from some old field? So long as it's not sitting on top of their sacred field, what's the concern? I suspect the argument that it's going to somehow affect the "historic" nature of this field is simply a front for their pure opposition to WalMart as a company. Seems pretty dumb to me. Even if traffic increases (it will) as a result of the WalMart, how does that affect this empty field?

@Pixel:

Because a Walmart isn't a gas station or a small bank. Traffic to the area will increase 10x, as will pollution (noise, trash, etc).

@punkrawka: Except for the fact that Wal-Mart has a history of building a store and then within 5-7 years building a newer, bigger nearby without securing any kind of occupancy for the previous store shell. These shells sit vacant while Wal-Mart uses them as a tax write-off.

The other major concern is the increase in traffic caused by the construction of a new Wal-Mart store. Since the battlefield is located less than a half-mile from the proposed location of the Wal-Mart you're probably looking at at least a 50%+ increase in the volume of traffic, not to mention that wherever a Wal-Mart goes up it seems to be shortly followed by chain restaurants and mini-strip plazas.

@punkrawka: Yes but Wal-Mart faces such an uphill battle just because of who they are and what they represent. I live near an open field that Wal-Mart purchased about 12 years ago with the eye of putting a supercenter there. Manor Township authorities fought them tooth-and-nail every step of the way from zoning to permits to improvements to infrastructure, so that there was never anything built on the site. Ten years after the first permit, Wal-Mart threw in the towel.

Tally one up for the small town zoning board who fought Wal-Mart and beat them in a fight of attrition. Chalk one up also for a big business that pledges to keep the field barren and consequently will never pay a dollar of improved-property tax to Manor Township.

Hey we don't need our precious history and land. We need MORE cheap chinese made goods laced with lead and other hazardous materials to slow kill ourselves and our children. It's for the greater good you know.

Just kidding walmart sux and is one major reason the economy is bad in the US. When I was a kid people were proud to say I buy America.. now their so proud to buy crappy slave labor Chinese made garbage laced with poisons. Awesome America! Way to be patriotic!

@Cant_stop_the_rock: Most localities will require some sort of water retention/detention pond to be constructed. If there's no room for that, then they may require that a bio-swale be constructed. A bio-swale being a series of underground drains that are designed to both filter water and help it get down into the sewers or, depending on how sophisticated the bio-swale is, back into the local water table.

@Cant_stop_the_rock: Those are almost never adequate. To the point that some municipalities have considered requiring gravel parking lots if you want your lot to be that ginormous.

(What you really need is a bioswale to deal with the roof runoff, and a parking lot with permeable pavement to deal with the parking lot runoff. When we're talking buildings and lots of this size, retention ponds just don't do it, and can create their own environmental issues.)

@Cant_stop_the_rock: I don't really have a position one way or the other in regards to the new Walmart, but I agree 100% on the storm water management problems. A flood of that caliber is caused by inept civil engineers (and county/city officials that approved the plans). It's not something that just routinely happens when constructing a large building; it's easily avoidable.

@tinyhands: How many nationally significant historic sites can you name? There are at least a hundred in most states, and I doubt that anyone other than history buffs knows about most of them.

Historic:well-known or important in history

Make careful note of the "or" in that definition. It can be either well-known or important. Doesn't have to be both.

@punkrawka: Southern Virginian, Petersburg in particular.

It's going to get me crap, it always does, but it seems to me that in Southern Va, there is TOO much emphasis on the CW. OH NO YOU CAN'T BUILD SOMETHING THERE THAT WILL HELP THE ECONOMY THERE IS A BLADE OF GRASS FROM THE CIVIL WARRRRR.

I can understand anti-Walmart sentiment, no problem. It's just that when it comes to almost anything of economic worth, the War almost always wins, and if I remember correctly, it doesn't seem to generate much anyway. There could be so much more... but no. I could understand if War/historic tourism was a major cash cow for the area, but it really isn't...

People don't need to know history in our capitalist society.

The place where americans died can now be tread upon by obese, mullet wearing, house dress wearing welfare recipients looking to get the lowest price possible!

They could put up a sign that reads:
"On this land, people fought and died for freedom...from high prices!"

@ikimashokie: It's not about the money. Harper's Ferry is a trasured historical landmark but last I checked, it was still very, very boring. The battlefields from the Civil War are really large swaths of land, yes. But with significant historical value that must be preserved for future generations.

@MostlyHarmless: The March to Fort Walton?

@punkrawka: i was exaggerating too. but it amounts to the same thing. It's like the floormats my mom buys to put on top of the floormats for the car. If someone told her they were going to pour mud on her car floor, she's going to want another set of floormats.

@TinkishDelight: sure why not. I went to South Stafford (lived closer to the burg).

@ikimashokie: obviously a large number of people, some them even living in the area, don't want it there. Unless you have some inexplicable but overwhelming desire to see a Supercenter built there, i say pack it up.

@ShruggingGalt: If your statements are correct, then it looks like Disney wanted to put a theme park out in Dulles, which is where AOL headquarters are. Dulles far enough from Manassas that you can't connect the two through walking or even shuttles (it's about 35 to 40 minutes without traffic). So I get that it might not have been a big draw.

Did they have uniform pants that big back in the Civil War era? Sgt. Slaughter over there taking up the flank looks like he had that uniform custom tailored.

@punkrawka: While I understand the idea of a buffer zone, just how long ago was the zoning done? If all this zoning was done before the idea of a walmart supercenter was ever conceived, I can see why it would be a problem. Supersized box stores are only a fairly recent phenomena, and I can see how a city may not have adjusted their zoning to reflect the possibilities of these new megabuildings.

@MostlyHarmless: I agree. Some of the preservationists could dress up in WalMart vests and use cannons on the others.

There'd be a problem deciding who had to play WalMart. The Union would argue the confederates should because they are used to representing a group with poor labor practices and the Confederates would argue they already fight against overwhelming odds and a force that wears blue.

@ThinkerTDM: Who's trying to prevent people from learning history?

@Esquire99: It isn't just an "old field," it's a National Park and a historical landmark. It's like putting a Wal-Mart next to the Harriet Tubman's house because "who cares, it's just an old shack." No, it has significance, and it's an important part of American history.

The poor location of the getto McDonalds right across from the vistor center and cemetery in gettysburg I think shows a small scale version of that bad idea. It ruined the feel of the town, which honestly would have became a ghost town without the battle of gettsburg many many years ago.

If you can't understand that the civil war was about states rights and the failure of economy due to the large scale effect of federal government almost ignoring all of the restrictions of the Constitution. We lost and now our government has become so big that their horrible management of the nation (since the early 1900's)is about the tank the rest of the economy if not corrected soon enough. Making fun of them is poor taste.

I believe that many of the people opposing putting the Walmart near an Historical site have an irrational hatred of Walmart

Usually we manage to coexist with history in Virginia. The Civil War crowd is very outspoken and very dedicated, but if you visit Manassas Battlefield National Park you'll see that it is surrounded by parking lots and strip malls. (Although history buffs did put their foot down when Disney threatened to put a park in the area.) My hometown in nearby Fauquier County even has Civil War historical markers IN parking lots.

I think a lot of this outrage is due to 1) It being an evil evil Wal-Mart instead of another big box store; 2) It being a relatively unknown site that historians feel deserves more attention; and 3) Mr. Duvall and the politicians getting involved.

@hi: Dude, you own America? I've always wanted to meet the guy who actually took the offer from the guy who had a bridge in Brooklyn to sell.

@ThinkerTDM: Wow, way to stereotype and make sweeping generalizations about Walmart customers.

So it's wrong to build a store near a historic battlefield, but it is perfectly ok to insult and degrade anyone who might shop at a given brand of store?

@tinyhands: Um, I've heard of it. Read about the Battle of the Wilderness in books as a kid (Charlie Skedaddle is the first one that comes to mind). And no, I'm not a reenactor or anything.

These days, a lot of people "have never heard of" Gettysburg or Lexington and Concord- guess it's time to start building a few more Wal-Marts around there, too.

@thebaron: No, the civil war was an attempt to maintain slavery. Pro-confederate means pro-slave, simple as that.

@Robobot: I agree 100% with your reasons for outrage, *especially* #1.

I am always amazed at the level of hatred Walmart causes in people. I've seen towns welcome a Target supercenter while fighting a Walmart supercenter tooth & nail.

Hell, I don't even *like* walmart. I shop there when it is more convenient than Target (or if they have something Target doesn't) but I don't have any fondness for them. But their just another departmetn store like Target, Kmart, Bradlees, Ames, Caldor, etc. and yet they illicit such amazingly vile reactions in people.

@pecan 3.14159265: And how is that affected by what is built near it? Does Harriet Tubman's house become not as historic with a big box store next door? Does this field lose it's historic importance because you can buy bulk toilet paper across the street?

How does having a big store, not visible from the battlefield site, affect the historic importance of the site?

@pecan 3.14159265:
But who cares if you can see it? Again, it would be different if they were proposing to put the Walmart on top of the site (though I wouldn't take issue with that, I understand why some people would). People get overly sensitive about having to merely see a store from the site. It seems there is already a buffer around the site, why is it necessary to have another buffer for the buffer?