View single post by 39th Miss. Walker
 Posted: Wed May 2nd, 2007 11:11 pm
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 
39th Miss. Walker

Joined: Tue May 1st, 2007
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 80

  back to top

Maybe I am reading this wrong and am too sensitive to this whole thing, I hope so.

What and who's standards was this construction project designed to, a bike standard, the NPS (historical preservation) standard or a DOT bikeway standard? Is it really necessary for a 10-12' wide black gravel path through the middle of the battlefield? Are they really advocating the only way to see the entire property is by bicycle? Who will man the site? Will there be any security to keep the ATV's and motorcycles and 4 wheel drives out? This isn't Gettyrburg with NPS Rangers on duty!

How does a bicycle path of over 4 miles fit on this property? Are we not concerned that this black gravel roadway is not in keeping with the battlefield? It is not a local park! If anything a mulched narrow path would have been preferable.

Who is the archaeologist that signed off on this project? What historian reviewed the project? Where is his research? Is this road now covering an historic roadway? True there are no witness trees, but the woods are where woods were before, except now there is a 50 foot cut right through the middle big enough to drive a tour bus.

I'm sorry I really can't accept the explaination because I asked the CWPT and got the same political runaround as these two letters.

I believe in the good and necessary work of the CWPT. This is not an anti CWPT rant. This is a case where I think they have done the opposite of what they should have been doing to this one property. 

 Close Window