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

Marriott Stalled: The Local Level

While the administration at the battlefield park was changing, Prince William County rushed forward with its review of the Marriott proposal. In what opponents called a "crash program," Prince William officials quickly addressed the different points of the county's 16 February letter of intent with Marriott. Two significant aspects of the letter involved adequate sewer and water facilities and the necessary rezoning and special permits. By the end of February the board of supervisors had begun negotiations with the state Water Control Board to obtain certification of additional capacity in the Upper Occoquan Sewer Authority. The board also pushed to hold meetings with the towns of Manassas and Manassas Park to investigate borrowing some of their projected sewer capacity and water supplies for the Marriott theme park. The county would need these sanitation and water facilities to meet the anticipated demand. [26]

To address the rezoning and special use issues, the supervisors asked the county planning commission to report on expected effects of the Marriott complex on Prince William County. In mid-March the planning department issued a preliminary report which indicated a "positive attitude" toward Marriott despite the lack of sufficient data for immediate recommendation of the proposal. Two weeks hater, on 3 April, the planning commission issued its revised report, which recommended passage of the rezoning request but listed a series of conditions for the special use permit. These conditions reflected the remaining unanswered questions about the complex, including adequate access roads, protection of water quality, and the need to buffer the national battlefield park from the theme park by the planting of trees. County planners also wanted assurances from Marriott that construction of a hotel and other amenities would wait until economically justified and that both Marriott and the county would work out a mutually agreeable rezoning if the corporation decided not to build the theme park. [27]

Driving the approval process was the realization that Marriott might soon abandon Prince William County. The corporation's options with ten property owners to buy the designated 513 acres expired on 7 April. Marriott had previously encountered opposition in Howard County, Maryland, twenty miles north of Washington, and had decided to consider Prince William County as an alternative. Having won this coveted opportunity, county officials did not want the corporation to renew its search. The planning commission accepted good faith efforts on the part of the county and Marriott to work out such remaining problems as protection of water quality and construction of adequate roads. [28]

Fully aware of the 7 April deadline for land options, the board of county supervisors met on 5 April to review the rezoning and special use permit request. The supervisors asked Marriott to clarify a range of issues, including sewers and road access, before voting unanimously in favor of the proposal. The board rezoned 335 acres next to the Manassas National Battlefield Park for the Great America theme park and an adjacent 178-acre tract for a light industrial park. For the special use permit, the supervisors attached the conditions that the planning commission had placed in its 3 April report. Individual board members also wanted assurances that the Marriott project would not divert road construction finds from other districts in the county. [29]

Perceived benefits from the Marriott theme park and light industrial complex countered the unresolved issues noted in the planning commission's April report. Certainly the projected $35-million Great America park and its expected multi-million-dollar tax revenues swayed supervisors toward approval. But social factors also played a role. Prince William supervisors cited Marriott's reputation as a "root-beer-to-riches, wholesome, family-oriented business" as a significant factor in granting the rezoning. Here was a company seen to be economically successful and committed to the same values as county residents. Such an image made Marriott attractive as a kind of antidote to rapid changes in the county. Significant population increases in the county over the past decade had led to an increase in crime. Fifty-seven people had been arrested recently in the county's largest drug raid. Marriott's promises of jobs, tax revenues, and a recreational outlet for county residents provided the needed assurances that the bad effects of county growth could be counterbalanced with promising economic development. [30]

The county supervisors' ideas about the beneficial aspects of the Marriott proposal failed to convince the Prince William League for the Protection of Natural Resources. Porter and Snyder continued to oppose construction of the theme park and light industrial complex. They wanted to protect the battlefield park from what they saw as uncontrolled development. They also wanted to preserve some of the last open spaces in the county. In an attempt to nullify the rezoning decision, the league filed a lawsuit against the county, arguing that supervisors had not given ample time to opposing view points during the board's 5 April meeting. County officials had allowed nine people opposing the Marriott proposal and twelve supporters to speak. Almost ninety people had attended the April hearing, including Anthony Lapham, attorney for the Prince William League, who called the board's actions "prejudged and preferential" toward Marriott. The league also alleged that the county had violated a state code by advertising the date of the meeting for fifteen days instead of the required nineteen. [31]

These issues temporarily halted work on the Marriott project. In January 1974, in the midst of addressing the charges in the lawsuit, the county's legal advisers determined that the rezoning and special use permit were invalid because of insufficient advertising for the April 1973 meeting. Supervisors, unaware of a 1968 state code that set a minimum of nineteen days for advertising a board meeting, questioned whether the rest of their post-1968 zoning determinations could go unchallenged. County officials wanted the Marriott decision grouped with all the other questionable rezonings and either set aside or validated by passage of special legislation in the Virginia General Assembly. [32]

Meeting the conditions of the special use permit proved more difficult to overcome. To address concerns over water quality, Marriott proposed to build its own spray sewage irrigation facility, which would handle waste until the expected 1980 opening of the Upper Occoquan Sewer Authority plant. The sewer authority, the agency that would review and approve Marriott's sewage treatment proposal, tabled discussion of the independent plant until Marriott could provide detailed engineering plans. Questions over access to the Marriott tract also stalled construction. In November 1974 the Federal Highway Authority approved the requested additional interchange at Interstate 66 but indicated that no federal interstate funds were or would be available for the project. The authority also placed four conditions on its approval, including the preparation of a full environmental impact statement. The state of Virginia also indicated its approval of the proposed interchange, although it refused to provide funding. [33]

The federal request for an environmental impact statement signaled the end for the Marriott proposal. When questions arose in 1973 and 1974 over freeway access and the legality of the county rezoning decision, corporate officials delayed the anticipated opening of the theme park from the original date of 1976 to 1978. Marriott had planned to open the theme park in time for the nation's bicentennial celebrations, recognizing that tourists traveling to Washington, D.C., for special festivities would consider spending a day at the theme park. Although Marriott had to delay the opening, the company remained committed to the project until the request for the environmental statement. The federal government wanted a detailed statement, which would require at least a year to complete. Marriott had theme park projects in the works in California and Illinois, and the corporation decided to focus on these sites until they were "well off the ground." Without the National Park Service ever stating a position, Marriott placed its Virginia Great America on the "back burner" and proceeded with other more promising projects. The threat to the park appeared dead, or at least moribund. [34]

The National Park Service's decision to stay neutral on the Marriott proposal saved the agency from taking a potentially controversial stand against local governing boards and politically influential individuals. The agency gained experience in addressing adjacent land-use controversies while also defending the lands under its charge. Yet nagging issues remained. At what point should the Park Service take a stand and embroil itself in heated debate? How should the agency approach opposing sides once it has taken a stand? To what extent should political realities shape the Service's steps to protect its parks? Over the next fifteen years, the Manassas National Battlefield Park and National Park Service would confront each of these questions as the abandoned Marriott tract generated new controversies.

http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/mana/adhi7d.htm