Second Manassas battlefield in danger

[John Winn]

If you've not heard about this give the video a listen. I think this is worse than the Gettysburg casino thing. I'll be donating.

 

[Belfoured]

If you've not heard about this give the video a listen. I think this is worse than the Gettysburg casino thing. I'll be donating.

This is a classic example of a (lame duck) public board caving for $$$$.

 

[peacefulanimalguy7]

Signed a petition to prevent it
https://www.battlefields.org/preser...nia-battlefields-massive-data-centers?ms=home if anyone else wants too

 

[dmharvey79]

It is a bit north of 2nd Manassas battlefield, but only 1/2 mile or so. The area is north of Sudley Springs and cuts west-ish towards Pageland Lane. Looking beyond this datacenter rezoning, if that happens I am willing to bet that the Prince William Parkway will get extended north to Route 50. This has been proposed numerous times in the past, and once that happens the area will become even more developed.

PWC board members only see $$$$ when it comes to the northern part of the country. Eveny penny they get from this datacenter rezoning will go to the opposite end of the county.

 

[Jamieva]

And they did it on their last day in office.

 

[Sheltowee]

And they did it on their last day in office.

That's the part that kind of confused me- why be so hell- bent when you're on the way out.
But I reckon kickbacks are payable even after out of office.

 

[UncleBourbon]

Correct me if I've misunderstood the situation, but the battlefield itself isn't under threat, and it's just the view of the treeline, primarily from Brawner Farm, Battery Heights, and Henry Hill, right?
If the battlefield itself were under threat I wouldn't hesitate to support, but if this only involves scenery outside the battlefield, I don't feel comfortable doing so, as it's less of a national issue and more of a local one. While I would prefer the treeline to remain the same indefinitely, it's up to the people of northern Virginia to decide what would benefit them.

 

[Belfoured]

Correct me if I've misunderstood the situation, but the battlefield itself isn't under threat, and it's just the view of the treeline, primarily from Brawner Farm, Battery Heights, and Henry Hill, right?
If the battlefield itself were under threat I wouldn't hesitate to support, but if this only involves scenery outside the battlefield, I don't feel comfortable doing so, as it's less of a national issue and more of a local one. While I would prefer the treeline to remain the same indefinitely, it's up to the people of northern Virginia to decide what would benefit them.

You have a pretty narrow definition of what preserves a battlefield. It's not just the "scenery". It's the proximity, the likely traffic and other impacts of this on the battlefield, the likelihood of further development, etc. Obviously you're entitled to your opinion but fortunately the ABT and a lot of others disagree. That Gettysburg Tower monstrosity was on adjoining land put up by a snake oil developer and was a massive eyesore. Enough people cared enough about the effects that it was deservedly blown to smithereens in 2000.

 

[JerryD]

Correct me if I've misunderstood the situation, but the battlefield itself isn't under threat, and it's just the view of the treeline, primarily from Brawner Farm, Battery Heights, and Henry Hill, right?
If the battlefield itself were under threat I wouldn't hesitate to support, but if this only involves scenery outside the battlefield, I don't feel comfortable doing so, as it's less of a national issue and more of a local one. While I would prefer the treeline to remain the same indefinitely, it's up to the people of northern Virginia to decide what would benefit them.

According to the plans approved by PWC the buildings will be 80 and 85 feet tall, NOT the 90 feet mentioned in this video. Developers routinely put together elevation projections that show how the height and mass of the buildings will look from adjoining properties. Would love to see some of them. But its very likely that the trees are over 80 feet tall and the buildings in any event will not be located right at the property line but will be subject to some kind of setback. Before I get too twisted up about this, I think seeing exactly what the impact will be is a reasonable request.

Seems a reasonable compromise, given the enormous scale of this project, is to ask that the few buildings that are close to the battlefield be limited in height so they are not seen above the existing tree line. Based on the site plan, it appears we are really only talking about two or three buildings that might be viewable from the current park.

https://alpha.creativecirclecdn.com/bristowbeat/original/20231213-172918-53305280903_490dc5f9fa_c.jpg

 

[Belfoured]

According to the plans approved by PWC the buildings will be 80 and 85 feet tall, NOT the 90 feet mentioned in this video. Developers routinely put together elevation projections that show how the height and mass of the buildings will look from adjoining properties. Would love to see some of them. But its very likely that the trees are over 80 feet tall and the buildings in any event will not be located right at the property line but will be subject to some kind of setback. Before I get too twisted up about this, I think seeing exactly what the impact will be is a reasonable request.

Seems a reasonable compromise, given the enormous scale of this project, is to ask that the few buildings that are close to the battlefield be limited in height so they are not seen above the existing tree line. Based on the site plan, it appears we are really only talking about two or three buildings that might be viewable from the current park.

https://alpha.creativecirclecdn.com/bristowbeat/original/20231213-172918-53305280903_490dc5f9fa_c.jpg

The opponents aren't just focused on the height of the buildings. They're also focused on undetermined issues like transmission lines, noise,etc.

 

[Jamieva]

Increased car traffic through the middle of the battlefield.

Remember the planning commission voted against approving this project. The trust did not start the lawsuit, there are 9 citizens of the county that filed the lawsuit and the trust joined their suit,

 

[JerryD]

The opponents aren't just focused on the height of the buildings. They're also focused on undetermined issues like transmission lines, noise,etc.

Again, all those issues can be easily resolved. Data centers should not make much noise. I know the video made a big deal about AC units, which strikes we as reaching for things to complain about. Transmission lines can be buried. And quite honestly, data centers dont use a lot of employees. Mostly they are just massive warehouses filled with computers and few people. Believe me, if they used this land to put in office buildings, or housing, it would generate a lot more noise and traffic. Data centers are actually a light use, other than from a power perspective.

 

[archieclement]

You have a pretty narrow definition of what preserves a battlefield. It's not just the "scenery". It's the proximity, the likely traffic and other impacts of this on the battlefield, the likelihood of further development, etc. Obviously you're entitled to your opinion but fortunately the ABT and a lot of others disagree. That Gettysburg Tower monstrosity was on adjoining land put up by a snake oil developer and was a massive eyesore. Enough people cared enough about the effects that it was deservedly blown to smithereens in 2000.

That's how it should work, don't want it there, pony up the money.

It's like when we had a big hog confinement proposal in my county, which I wasn't against. The anti activists would ask me "How would you like one across the road from your house?"

The answer was always rather simple "It's why I own the land across the road from my house" it rather gives the decision making to me

Just like it's the other farmers if he wants to build a confinement.......

 

[Belfoured]

Again, all those issues can be easily resolved. Data centers should not make much noise. I know the video made a big deal about AC units, which strikes we as reaching for things to complain about. Transmission lines can be buried. And quite honestly, data centers dont use a lot of employees. Mostly they are just massive warehouses filled with computers and few people. Believe me, if they used this land to put in office buildings, or housing, it would generate a lot more noise and traffic. Data centers are actually a light use, other than from a power perspective.

You think the proponents are looking to bury their transmission lines? $$$$$$

 

[archieclement]

According to the plans approved by PWC the buildings will be 80 and 85 feet tall, NOT the 90 feet mentioned in this video. Developers routinely put together elevation projections that show how the height and mass of the buildings will look from adjoining properties. Would love to see some of them. But its very likely that the trees are over 80 feet tall and the buildings in any event will not be located right at the property line but will be subject to some kind of setback. Before I get too twisted up about this, I think seeing exactly what the impact will be is a reasonable request.

Seems a reasonable compromise, given the enormous scale of this project, is to ask that the few buildings that are close to the battlefield be limited in height so they are not seen above the existing tree line. Based on the site plan, it appears we are really only talking about two or three buildings that might be viewable from the current park.

https://alpha.creativecirclecdn.com/bristowbeat/original/20231213-172918-53305280903_490dc5f9fa_c.jpg

Indeed, that would be reasonable. Certainly there's some groups that are never happy, set aside 1000 acres, they want 1500, then 2000....it never ends to those types.

 

[Belfoured]

Indeed, that would be reasonable. Certainly there's some groups that are never happy, set aside 1000 acres, they want 1500, then 2000....it never ends to those types.

Fortunately a lot of "those types" have more reverence for the history that was made on these sites than the other "types" who just worship $$$$. The former includes some landowners who have enough respect for history that they've taken less than they could have gotten by selling to the highest bidder.

 

[archieclement]

Fortunately a lot of "those types" have more reverence for the history that was made on these sites than the other "types" who just worship $$$$. The former includes some landowners who have enough respect for history that they've taken less than they could have gotten by selling to the highest bidder.

There's realisticly a balance, that they are never happy and always want more demonstrates they are blind.

Many battlefields are rather poor investments, in actuality. What percent of 333 million Americans do you think actually will ever visit minor battlefields?

Gettysburg NMP is over 6000 acres now, how many visitors of the minority who will visit at some time, do you think will walk over 100 of those acres? I think it hard to argue its better investment then other national investments/infrastructure.

Note I'm not advocating elimination, but that certainly at some point one needs to realize enough is enough. As well I personally enjoy battlefields, at the same time I can recognize doing so, puts me in rather a minority of Americans

 

[JerryD]

Fortunately a lot of "those types" have more reverence for the history that was made on these sites than the other "types" who just worship $$$$. The former includes some landowners who have enough respect for history that they've taken less than they could have gotten by selling to the highest bidder.

Well, I think I have a fairly healthy reverence for history, and last I looked I dont worship money. But I do think economic development is a good thing and can go hand in hand with preserving our history. I dont think its all or nothing, like I think the ABT people are.

They say they are not anti-development, but then say they oppose development because it increases traffic. Well, data centers actually cause minimal traffic. Let those 600 acres be subdivided and filled with condos and you'll see traffic!

 

[Belfoured]

There's realisticly a balance, that they are never happy and always want more demonstrates they are blind.

Many battlefields are rather poor investments, in actuality. What percent of 333 million Americans do you think actually will ever visit minor battlefields?

Gettysburg NMP is over 6000 acres now, how many visitors of the minority who will visit at some time, do you think will walk over 100 of those acres? I think it hard to argue its better investment then other national investments/infrastructure.

Note I'm not advocating elimination, but that certainly at some point one needs to realize enough is enough. As well I personally enjoy battlefields, at the same time I can recognize doing so, puts me in rather a minority of Americans

The "balance" also involves recognizing that there are others who prioritize first, second, third etc greed. Too often local zoning/planning boards are driven by that. Battlefield preservation is only one area that encounters that.

 

[Belfoured]

Well, I think I have a fairly healthy reverence for history, and last I looked I dont worship money. But I do think economic development is a good thing and can go hand in hand with preserving our history. I dont think its all or nothing, like I think the ABT people are.

They say they are not anti-development, but then say they oppose development because it increases traffic. Well, data centers actually cause minimal traffic. Let those 600 acres be subdivided and filled with condos and you'll see traffic!

I'm in the ABT and have been for awhile, so it's advisable to bury simplistic assumptions about motivations. Have you studied all the evidence presented in the rezoning process before weighing in on this one? The fact that it was approved by a lame duck board only raises issues, as it should in any case.