Battling for Manassas: The Fifty-Year Preservation Struggle at Manassas National Battlefield Park

Table of Contents

Foreword

Acknowledgements

Introduction

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Chapter 7

Chapter 8

Chapter 9

Chapter 10

Chapter 11

Bibliography

Appendix I

Appendix II

Appendix III

Appendix IV

Appendix V (omitted from on-line edition)

Appendix VI

Appendix VII

Appendix VIII

Manassas Chapter 7

Great America in Manassas

Congress Looks at the Marriott Theme Park

Despite its attempts to stay out of the clamorous debate, the National Park Service continued to garner attention from theme park opponents and Congress. Opponents wanted to know what information the Park Service obtained from Marriott and how this data would influence the agency's decision on the proposal. When it became clear that the Park Service had deferred a decision until Marriott submitted detailed site plans, these opponents went to Congress for action. The Civil War Round Tables of Alexandria, Virginia, and the District of Columbia asked Washington lawyer Frederick Simpich to appeal on their behalf to the House Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation. The Round Tables wanted Congress to hold hearings to determine whether the amusement park would have a detrimental effect on the Manassas National Battlefield Park. If assurances of the integrity of the national park could not be obtained, these organizations wanted the federal government to acquire the 513-acre tract by out right purchase or scenic easements. [19]

The national parks subcommittee needed little prompting from the Round Tables to investigate the Marriott project. One committee member, Ron de Lugo (D-V.I.), lived on the boundary of the Manassas National Battlefield Park and knew how similar developments affected other areas of the country. He wondered how Manassas could be saved from "giant traffic jams" and unauthorized camping if the theme park opened. Another committee member was suspicious about the haste with which the Prince William County officials had pushed the Marriott project. A congressional hearing would bring out the facts for public review. Initial questioning of National Park Service Direct.or Ronald H. Walker at a recent hearing on other matters had further convinced committee members that the issue needed exploration. [20]

Congressional query into the Marriott proposal was limited to the theme park's impact on the national battlefield park. Decisions on the rezoning of the tract from agricultural to commercial use and the special use permit for tall structures remained in local hands. Congress, however, had authority to step into the debate if federal roads or other improvements were involved. If testimony presented at the oversight hearing indicated that the theme park would be detrimental to the battlefield park, Congress also wanted to know what action the National Park Service was taking to protect the park. Legislation had not been proposed in relation to this issue; hence, the congressional hearing was a quest for background information as part of the committee's oversight role. [21]

Supporters and opponents of the Marriott proposal packed the 3 April oversight hearing. David Brown, vice president of the corporation's theme park division, tried to assure Congress that Marriott had every intention of being a good neighbor to the battlefield park and the surrounding community by accepting their suggestions and following them "within any kind of reason." Other proponents of the theme park emphasized the tax revenue benefits the project would give Prince William County. Porter, LeKander, Simpich, and other concerned individuals expressed their misgivings about the effects of traffic, pollution, and crime. Raymond Humphreys, a neighbor of the park, fervently argued that to desecrate the hallowed ground of the battlefield by the "infringement of crass commercial enterprise" was to "trample the most sacred" of all American institutions. Porter especially worried that ancillary facilities springing up around the Marriott park would destroy the aesthetic and historic values of the Manassas National Battlefield Park and the surrounding areas. In response to these different concerns, theme park opponents reintroduced the idea of the federal government acquiring the Marriott tract. [22]

During his testimony on 3 April, NPS Director Walker drew criticism from Congress and theme park opponents for not taking a stand on the Marriott proposal. Subcommittee Chair Roy A. Taylor (D-N.C.) noted that in his thirteen years as head of the national parks committee, Walker was the first director to say Interior could not take a position because it did not have enough facts. Walker explained that Marriott had been cooperative in holding initial meetings with the Park Service, but the agency needed detailed site plans to determine with confidence the theme park's potential impact on the battlefield. This explanation failed to satisfy. Civil War Round Table representative Simpich concurred with Congressman Taylor's observation and requested that the subcommittee urge Interior to be creative in its thinking rather than be content to tell Congress why it could not act. LeKander ended his testimony with the cutting observation that former NPS Director Conrad Wirth knew how to protect the park system, implying that Walker did not. [23]

Outside the hearing room, other members of Congress supported the National Park Service's decision to delay taking a stand on the Marriott proposal. Speaker Tip O'Neill (D-Mass.) saw the political value of seeking information and establishing dialogues among the different parties until all the needed data became available. In recognition of Berry's particular role in this process, O'Neill asked that Berry be considered for a superintendency of two historical parks in Boston in which O'Neill had a special interest. Berry accepted the offer and left the Manassas National Battlefield Park in late spring 1973. [24]

The National Park Service continued its neutral stance when Richard Hoffman replaced Berry as superintendent. Hoffman, a self-described "down-home, crusty type of guy," met on several occasions with both preservationists and Marriott officials to obtain information. His unpretentious appearance made him seem approachable. His previous experience at the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area, Fire Island National Seashore, and Isle Royale National Park provided him with an understanding of conflicting use patterns. He was also the first nonhistorian appointed to the superintendency at Manassas, furthering the change in management style that Berry had initiated. In his initial meetings with theme park opponent Annie Snyder, now recovered from her accident, and ardent Marriott supporter Ralph Mauller, Hoffman succeeded in leaving each person uncertain of the Park Service's leanings on the issues, thereby retaining the agency's neutral position. Hoffman also managed to garner help from Prince William County supervisor Mauller on other issues affecting the battlefield park, including information about a proposed community college on the park's borders. In discussions with Marriott's David Brown, Hoffman continued Berry's efforts to obtain further clarification of plans for the theme park. [25] With the NPS remaining neutral, events played themselves out on the local and national level. Resolution of the Marriott controversy is a significant barometer of a similar debate fifteen years hence.

http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/mana/adhi7c.htm