I can see both sides. Yes, the property owner does have the right to sell or not sell. But it is true that the area is losing tax revenue each time another historic property is taken off the tax rolls. Taxes pay for schools, health care, infrastructure. How do you pay for those without tax revenue? And visitors to Gettysburg expect roads to be passable and water and sewer in their hotels to be reliable.
Contrary to what some might think, the people who live in and have businesses in Gettysburg are well-aware that the reason many visitors come is because of the battle, but keep in mind that the town of Gettysburg and the Gettysburg NPS (including the VC and Eisenhower Farm) are not the same thing financially. And visitation is down, has been down, at the businesses that serve tourists. Gettysburg is also just a small town, not at all just the battle that happened there, with small town problems, wants and needs. Yes, we want to save as much of the important history that happened there, but it's wise to remember that there is never just one side to the story.
In 1863, Gettysburg just happened to be where all the roads met--the town didn't volunteer for the battle. Many townspeople today deeply respect that "accidental honor," but they also live and work in the small town of Gettysburg, their hometown, and not just the scene of a battle 153 years ago. They want the same things that we CW students do, but it is their town. I would be pretty p i s s e d if someone not from around here came to my town and told me it was wrong to do something in my own town because they felt it wasn't the right decision.
Okay, off my soap box now.
Forum Host
Bringing the