What’s Wrong with the World

Also, in what must have been a marvelous spectacle, some folks showed up at a community meeting decked out in full Civil War costumes, including a “dead ringer” for General Lee himself.

Civil War reenactors are, without exception in my experience, generous, honorable, and diligent. Since my own childhood was spent exploring the battlefields of Yorktown on many a Sunday afternoon, it is my happy obligation to cheer on those who are fighting this encroachment against a historical landmark.

I'm not sure I really understand what the principle is supposed to be: The entire _view from_ the battlefield must be historically accurate? Wouldn't this mean no houses as well, around not just the battlefield site but the entire _view_ from the battlefield? No telephone poles? Nothing as far as the eye can see, for the benefit of documentary makers? Isn't that a pretty sweeping mandate? Is the problem just that it's Wal-Mart and therefore ugly and supposedly a symbol of capitalist decadence, etc., etc., rather than that now the view around the battlefield will be historically inaccurate? At first when I saw the post, I thought they were going to build a Wal-Mart _on_ the battlefield. Now that, I get. You preserve the historic site. But now if the entire view from the historic site is also a public treasure, this is getting really, really broad. I don't know if y'all have heard about the cases where people have been forbidden to build houses on their own land because it's part of a "view" from some overlook or something along the highway, and the view is now supposed to be public property as well. I'm told this has happened. I think we should think twice before we start claiming that the entire eye's view from some location, rather than just the location itself, should be mandated to meet some aesthetic or historical purpose. And if the government is going to claim that you can't build X non-historical thing on any site within the view, shouldn't they have to pay for everything within the view, under the takings clause? In justice, if not even in law? After all, when the government takes over some historic house or park to preserve it for posterity, they have to _buy_ it. Which is quite legitimate. But now every private landowner who owns something within _view_ of the historic site must maintain it in historically pristine condition at his own expense?

Sorry not to be more sympathetic, but I think we should think twice about where this is going and what our principle is supposed to be.

It is really an interesting problem. The land was already zoned commercial. If it was important for the preservation of the historical landmark, why wasn't it part of the "protected" land? Maybe the decision way back whenever to form the protected 2700 acres decided land outside of that 2700 acres was unnecessary for the maintenance of history.

While I am in favor of maintaining historical perspective, I am not sure how important it really is to keep as "sacred" land that was, perhaps, only peripheral to the battle.

Furthermore, who should bear the costs associated with keeping that land protected? Should the community around Wilderness, or Orange County, or Virginia, or the US, buy out Walmart's interest and trade in some other, equally suitable site near this area of Orange? Or should they just get to say that Walmart cannot use land that was zoned "commercial" for a commercial purpose. My preference is the former: Set up a charitable organization to collect donations (both locally and nationally) to buy out Walmart's interest, and then turn the land into a preserved area. Also to collect signatures from locals saying that they will preferentially shop at Walmart if Walmart will move to a spot a couple miles away. That way everyone's interest is met.

And if you cannot collect enough money to turn the trick, then maybe the people simply do not place that much value in such a preservation effort.

Crikey! It's even worse than I thought! I just went and read the article. The claim is that it _won't_ even be within view of the battlefield but simply "near" or "adjacent" to it and that it might draw too much traffic near it. For crying out loud! This is getting pretty far afield, no pun intended. What could the principle be? The air around historic battlefields must not be polluted by the sound of "too much traffic" driving to Wal-Mart in the vicinity?

What could the principle be? The air around historic battlefields must not be polluted by the sound of "too much traffic" driving to Wal-Mart in the vicinity?

I haven't thought through the issue, although since one of my areas is music history, I am sort of partial to historical preservation. In any case, noise pollution is not the issue; the increased pollution from car exhausts would, over time, cause acid rain and eventually kill plants and harm some geological structures on the actual site. I have no idea what one could do about that.

The Chicken

I have no idea what one could do about that.

But that's just the problem, isn't it? Even if what you say is true, we really cannot have some sort of principle whereby all historic sites now have some sort of undefined "buffer zone" around them in which development must not take place, even though government does not purchase the land. After all, the whole point of purchasing land for preservation in the first place is that there is some prima facie worry that otherwise _that_ land might be developed. If they wanted _more_ land to remain undeveloped, they should have designated more of it as historic in the first place and purchased it as part of the battlefield site. Otherwise we just have this vague mandate to force all private people who own land even "in the vicinity of" historic sites to maintain a kind of large, open-air museum at their own expense, paying property taxes and the like, but unable to develop the land even according to the designation by which it has been zoned (commercial, in this case). Something has got to be very wrong, there.

Still, the cause of historical memory is no small matter. I am not of the view that business interests are inherently disreputable, but there are interests in the Republic that are deeper and weightier than business.

Memory is essential to identity and Being. The preservation of history and the cultivation of gratitude and tradition, are unwelcome obstacles to a consumerist culture based on novelty, perpetual disenchantment, endless innovation and Having.

Our industrial-educational system is designed to create self-interested shoppers, not the kind of men who fought at Gettysburg, so the image of the Wilderness Battlefield transformed into an unsightly Placeless Place swarming with over-stuffed denizens from Super Size Me Nation is an apt portrait of America, circa 2009.

Pave over the past and steal from the future so we can sate ourselves in the present.

Mr. Walton, tear down that monument.

What could the principle be? The air around historic battlefields must not be polluted by the sound of "too much traffic" driving to Wal-Mart in the vicinity?

The article says that it would be "within a cannonball's shot from the Wilderness Battlefield," so it can't be permitted on public safety grounds lest a stray cannonball hits a person during a battle re-enactment.

The air around historic battlefields must not be polluted by the sound of "too much traffic" driving to Wal-Mart in the vicinity?

There can never be too much noise given how much we dread silence. Let a thousand motors purr, may the boom boxes blare as we cradle our snack-trays and march down Robert E. Lee H'way towards the blue-light special.

so it can't be permitted on public safety grounds lest a stray cannonball hits a person during a battle re-enactment.

They use cannonballs in the cannons during re-enactments? I never knew that! Do they use real battalion targets? And real medics, and real surgeons amputating limbs, all for authenticity? Now that's dedication! (I've never been to a re-enactment of a battle - now isn't that just terrible? But then, neither had anyone from George Washington's time right up through Theodore Roosevelt's time, and somehow they seem to have had sufficient respect for history, so maybe there's hope for me yet.)

Lydia, I encourage you to look at the maps I linked to, particularly this one: http://www.civilwar.org/battlefields/wilderness/maps/wildernesswalmartmap.html

As I said, the Walmart will rise directly in rear of what was the Union right flank. A friend who lives in Virginia tells me the store will unquestionably be visible from the battlefield.

Moreover, half the attractiveness of letting a Walmart move in, from the perspective of the county's commercial interest, is that over time it will bring in many more stores and strip malls. In Leesburg, VA, where my cousin lives, a Walmart was built some years back out in the middle of nowhere. Within a remarkably short period of time that middle-of-nowhere transformed into a bustling commercial center, eventually dwarfing the other shopping centers and the old, traditional town center. Similarly with the town in northern Michigan where my family vacations. A Walmart was built several miles off the beach, well away from the main business district, basically in the middle of nowhere; and within a couple years that whole area exploded. I was amazed at the transformation when we were up there in June.

In other words, the chances of this development being confined to a single Walmart are vanishingly small. Note on the map that a section of main battlefield, where the Union VI Corps retreated on May 6, which is adjacent to the Walmart land, may also be developed.

The more I look into this, the more its stinks to high heaven.

I live in the area and I think the anti-Walmart furor is absurd. The battles here raged far and wide, so are we supposed to keep the entire area a forest? There are trenches, farms, and other historical markers that of course should be preserved - this touches none of them. If we can't build on any place where Robert E. Lee and Traveler may have rode, then half the state is off limits.

I'd like to know what Europe thinks of all this too. I guess when you've only had one Civil War, you get upset about this stuff, whereas when you've had many, you don't try to preserve every horse trail from 140 years ago.

It would be different if we were talking about preserving castles or other structures. In this case we are talking about woods that weren't part of the battle. But it's the left's favorite boogeyman, WalMart, so everyone can oppose it.

Why should we even preserve trenches and farms and the like, Joel? After all, it's just like horsetails and 140-year-old bones. Once we get through a few more civil wars like the sainted Europeans, no one will care about all this leftist absurdity anyway.

If they wanted _more_ land to remain undeveloped, they should have designated more of it as historic in the first place and purchased it as part of the battlefield site.

Who knew about the effects of pollution from automobiles when the site was originally purchased? There were no cars nearby. How could they have know that their original site would become subject to these sorts of problems. Granted, one can't plan for everything, but one can correct things from current knowledge, where possible.

The Chicken

A conservatism that doesn't conserve, but is instead a shallow doctrine in defense of consumption, commercial development and Every Day Low Prices, is incapable of preserving anything resembling a cultural heritage.

It is impossible to ask the education system to protect and pass on our civilizational treasures, while simultaneously ravaging the landscape with strip malls, Big Box stores and Golden Arches. The soulless architecture of NoWhere is the perfect companion to the erasure of historical consciousness that occurs in the classroom.

Well obviously we have to draw a distinction somewhere about what to preserve. I'm all for historical preservation, and have no love for Wal-mart in particular or big boxes and parking lots in general, but we can't simply preserve the whole state of Virginia. Where is the line drawn?

"Where is the line drawn?" Is Virginia under-developed? Folks having a tough time finding foodstuffs and furniture because of an overly powerful Village Green Preservation Society?

But, Paul, I still don't understand why we should accept a principle that there must not be development *in the vicinity* of monuments, and how such a principle can possibly be followed without injustice either to taxpayers (in the form of a mandate for massive and in-principle difficult to limit public purchases for preservation) or landowners (in the form of a mandate to maintain and pay taxes on land at their own expense that they are not permitted to develop). If the objection is to a Wal-Mart on _this_ side of the battlefield, presumably the same objection would arise to a Wal-Mart on _another_ side. Does this mean that either the town must purchase an entire, large, sweep of land around the entire battle site or that land owners should suddenly be hit with a zoning switcheroo and forced to keep land in pristine condition in perpetuity whose value at purchase was set without such a mandate? If there is a _specific_ tract of land that is really believed to be in itself historical and for which development is feared (you mention one, Paul), then _that_ piece of land could be purchased with just compensation and preserved. But what I object to is the notion of an undefined "buffer zone" around all historic sites.

Perhaps the best solution would have been to zone some larger area around the battlefield as residential. That way, development can take place and the areas are not rendered valueless to their private owners, but the usage is more low-key than it is with commercial zoning. Still, that decision has a lot of ramifications, especially if the zoning would now have to be suddenly changed, and it seems to me that the people of the town are the best judges of whether such a zoning decision is a good idea and, if so, for how large an area.

My biggest problem here is that it seems that we don't have a handle on exactly what we are demanding of the town and of the landowners, and for how large an area, and with what limits on the size of the area, in order to see whether that is a reasonable demand.

I read some years ago about a "New Urban" development somewhere and how a Wal-Mart was going to be built _in sight of_ the New Urban development. Horror of horrors! I have no problem with the NUs buying and building a development the way they want it, but it seems unreasonable of them to demand that everything beyond their own boundaries that falls within sight of their aesthetically delicate eyes must also meet their sensibilities. The Wal-Mart people even offered to make the store _look_ NU, with little outdoor plazas and such, but no dice. They convinced the city to use eminent domain (or so I remember the story) to force the Wal-Mart to sell so that the building of a Wal-Mart within sight of the NU development was prevented.

It's that sort of "tentacle" idea (also manifested in what I mentioned above about people's being forbidden to build homes within "scenic views" from highways) that bothers me, that idea that there is this unspecified, perhaps even _huge_ (anything within sight) "bubble zone" around anything historic, beautiful, or even (as in the NU case) newly built and "aesthetic," that now must be left undeveloped or not developed in ways that go against the sensibilities of those who appreciate the "core" piece of land. This seems to me wrong. If we have preservation, the whole point is that the other stuff _doesn't_ have to be preserved. It just seems to me wrong to start by saying, "Okay, we'll buy this land and preserve it, or build the kind of development on it that we like," etc., and then start saying, beyond that, "Now we also want to control the use of all the land the eye can see round about this area as well."

As I said, the Walmart will rise directly in rear of what was the Union right flank.

Its spectre was there way back in 1864. No wonder the fight then was so bitter.

it seems to me that the people of the town are the best judges of whether such a zoning decision is a good idea and, if so, for how large an area

Typically Planning Boards are dominated by contractors and commercial interests vested in land development and building codes that allow for the erection of McMansions and other temples to ourselves.

Reverence for the blood spilled on the soil they seek to till is not very ingrained amongst a people raised to forget and acquire.

Kevin:

Typically Planning Boards are dominated by contractors and commercial interests...

You appear to be neglecting the fact that a vote must be cast by those at "City Hall" and that any number of citizens can actually voice their protest in front of the deciding members.

I remember a spirited appeal made by one such citizen which inevitably influenced a majority of such decision-makers and ultimately halted the conversion of much-beloved playground into a parking lot.

Reverence for the blood spilled on the soil they seek to till is not very ingrained amongst a people raised to forget and acquire.

So _how much_ land is supposed to count as "blood-stained" and therefore untouchable? And wouldn't it have been nice to tell the property owners this a long time ago? And who now has to maintain all of this sacred soil? And please note that the Wal-Mart is evidently _not_ supposed to be on "blood-stained" soil but merely "in its vicinity." So how much of a "vicinity" around blood-stained soil now needs to be kept sacrosanct as well? Is there a vicinity around the vicinity? And who pays?

I find all of this mere rhetoric a bit frustrating. We're supposedly putting a high-minded moral imperative upon the people of this town. I think we should start thinking and talking about what, total, we're demanding, and showing that we care tuppence about the human costs involved now, today.

Ari, it takes passionate people with a strong sense of stewardship to resist the siren calls of "higher-property values", "more tax rateables",or "more comvenient shopping" to thwart the schemes of the well-connected. Congrats on doing so, but the culture is generally hostile to such efforts.

The human cost associated with a hodge-podge landscape of ugliness is very pronounced, Lydia.in balancing the interests of preservation, attractiveness and economic growth, would you say it is the latter that normally suffers?

The human cost associated with a hodge-podge landscape of ugliness is very pronounced, Lydia.in balancing the interests of preservation, attractiveness and economic growth, would you say it is the latter that normally suffers?

I'm not clear on the actual predicament in this town which ultimately gave rise to such a decision; however, certain towns on the very periphery of near or total bankruptcy tend to entertain and even eventually accomodate development such as this at the expense of their pristine landscape and even on lands notable for their historical significance.

So, it would seem to me that a decision like this would fall (and, indeed, rightly so) on those who happen to reside -- preferably, historically, if not, presently -- within these towns, no?

Kevin, I grow tired of the fact that you can't even be bothered to say how large of a mandate you are seeking here for preservation or, more importantly, who should have to foot the bill. "Higher property values," you say. Gee, how about just not _plummeting_ property values? If X chunk of land "in the vicinity" of the battlefield can't be developed, then prima facie neither can _any_ chunk of land within the same radius. If, as you apparently want, development of the chunk of land in particular here is forbidden, what happens to the property values of all the other people who own land (which they previously thought could be developed) within the same radius? And do you give a darn?

It reminds me of these situations where somebody buys in good faith a piece of property zoned to allow building duplexes or something and then a nice man from the gov'mint turns up and tells him, "Congratulations, Mr. Jones! We've discovered evidence that the ruby-crested tomahawk-headed chickadee nests on your land. From now on, cut down a single tree at your peril! Of course, you can now join the white elephant owners' club, because you'll never be able to sell this land. But comfort yourself with the thought of how grateful your country is for your generosity in maintaining a chickadee refuge at your expense world without end. We'll send you a Christmas card."

But perhaps you approve of that, too.

It is impossible to ask the education system to protect and pass on our civilizational treasures, while simultaneously ravaging the landscape with strip malls, Big Box stores and Golden Arches. The soulless architecture of NoWhere is the perfect companion to the erasure of historical consciousness that occurs in the classroom.

Typically Planning Boards are dominated by contractors and commercial interests vested in land development and building codes that allow for the erection of McMansions and other temples to ourselves.

How interesting. One man's "education" is another man's abomination. Some 10 years ago, about 30 miles up the road, there was a push to build a new Disney park devoted to American history themes. They specifically wanted to teach history, albeit with an entertainment twist. The people of the county and state eventually said: NO.

Now, I probably agree with the majority opinion that the kind of "history" they were likely to teach is so watered down as to be negligible. But it is surely not worse than a standard theme park. In any case, the choice of the planning board - in the hands of "developers" as you put it - was not to allow this type of development. Due mostly to the public pressure of many individuals speaking out at meetings, on the phone, and by mail. So if they can do it in one part of Virginia, I have no doubt they can do it a few miles away, given the need to do so.

Kevin, you have yet to suggest how it is that land that was already zoned commercial should be refused to develop perfectly legitimate commercial interests, while preserving the rule of law.

Is it that it is specifically WALMART that the objection arises? What if the proposal was for an equally large skating rink / gym / coffee bar / sushi shop? Would the outcry be as loud?

Is it that it is specifically WALMART that the objection arises? What if the proposal was for an equally large skating rink / gym / coffee bar / sushi shop? Would the outcry be as loud?

Exactly. And amen. Wal-Mart is a symbol, and quite frankly, I get very tired of its being a symbol. One almost gets the impression that Wal-Mart is treated as an intrinsic evil. Sometimes I think it would be simpler if activists just pushed for outlawing Wal-Mart and K-Mart altogether and letting people otherwise get on with their lives, and then at least we'd know where we stand. But no. The goal, instead, seems to be some sort of evolving law against ugliness, some sort of open-ended imperative for ex post facto decisions, in disregard of previous zoning and of the good-faith purchase of property at market prices on the basis of the then-applicable situation, as to whether or not it should now be okay to build this or that "in the vicinity" of this or that.

Nothing here is important except that here is another town getting what they don't really know they are asking for. Walmart- destroying every last stronghold of culture one town at a time. And... Walmart- putting your fellow Americans out of work just so you can save your greedy self another nickle. Stupid. Disgusting. Vile.

Lydia,
Let's forget it is an ugly, Soviet-style building called Wal-Mart and let's pretend it is a two-building complex for Victoria's Secret and Hooter's. I'd still be against it. Would you still be for it? Each would generate jobs, sales and property taxes for the township. Are you now going to say taste is a consideration?

You say there will be economic benefits for the whole community should the property be developed. Does commerce trump all other goods? The cultivation of a cultural memory, the physical and spiritual distinctiveness of a particular community, the physical appeal of the land, the public affirmation that man cannot live on bread alone, the sense of indebtedness to those who have gone before and the obligation to those who follow, these are all important considerations that are absent from your knee-jerk, "get the pavers out" argument and are lost when commercial interests triumph over all others. Do you even give a damn?

Earlier you made a sneering reference to aesthetics, which suggests, you are quite comfortable with the Geography of NoWhere's strip malls, billboards, neon signs and franchises. It is troubling that you can be so dismissive regarding the humanizing effect of Beauty and the need that it be found in our architecture, streets and communities. Honestly, why is that? Do you think the moral imagination is best left to the arts, while profit, convenience and efficiency should hold sway over our social ecology?

Chesterton once remarked to the effect, that a place is not loved because it is lovely, but that it is lovely because it is loved. I have never heard anyone say they "love" the big box mall offering cheap stuff. Those opposed to the installation of an imposing grotesque concrete slab near hallowed grounds, are in love in a way that mere consumers can never be. They deserve the support of those of us who understand that sometimes the price of "progress" isn't worth it.

Let's forget it is an ugly, Soviet-style building called Wal-Mart and let's pretend it is a two-building complex for Victoria's Secret and Hooter's. I'd still be against it. Would you still be for it? Each would generate jobs, sales and property taxes for the township. Are you now going to say taste is a consideration?

It doesn't matter which stores occupy the space since it was zoned for commercial use. The issue is the rule of law and property rights. If preserving a pristine view is so important, then the government (local, state, and/or federal) needs to pony up the cash for, in effect, taking the property.

It doesn't matter which stores occupy the space since it was zoned for commercial use.

Ok, a "Gentlemen's Club" it is. Let's see if Lydia agrees with that.

As for it being zoned for commercial use, I'm fine with non-profits using the space to collect donations from passing cars to raise money for returning veterans.

It being Wal-Mart does make it a little more fun. It would be almost poetic if Walmart bought the land and prepared to develop it, only to have it seized by the government via eminent domain.

The issue is the rule of law and property rights. If preserving a pristine view is so important, then the government (local, state, and/or federal) needs to pony up the cash for, in effect, taking the property.

Is it now the position of some that local gov't's are legally required to develop all land set aside for commercial use? The town owns the land and they do not have to pony up any cash to pay themselves.

And after decades of "eminent domain" being applied against urban families and neighborhoods on behalf of highway projects and new residential/commercial buildings, it is touching to hear property rights being invoked by suburban aficionados of retail retail stores and fast food chains.

Kevin, you are changing the subject. I would object to "gentleman's clubs" etc. because of what they are, not because they are built within sight of/adjacent to a battlefield.

And actually, though I haven't time to read back through all my comments, I don't believe that my major point _has_ been the economic benefits of developing this land (though that is a point I could and would make and think is legitimate) but rather the unreasonable burden of a mandate to preserve a donut of all the land adjacent to the battlefield.

If the town does indeed own the land right now where the Wal-Mart is to be built--which I had not known--does the town also own all the land adjacent to the battlefield, zoned commercial, to which similar objections to development would be made? It certainly sounds from the story as though _now_ Wal-Mart owns this one particular piece of land, and again, this mandate to allow nothing to arise "within sight" of the battlefield to which historians could object is fairly sweeping.

_If_ the town presently owns the entire "buffer zone" of land which the preservationists also want preserved--of course, they haven't told us how much they would demand as such a buffer zone, so it would be hard to tell, wouldn't it?--then the burden for the town to preserve would be less than if the town had to buy the land anew. But if some of it is presently private property, then the justice question certainly does arise if development is to be forbidden _without_ purchase. (See my comments above on forcing people not to develop their land while forcing them still to own it after it has become impossible to sell.) And in any event, telling the town that it _must not_ develop any of this land, even if it owns it and even though it is not part of the historical site but merely adjacent to it (I keep feeling like no one on the other side is acknowledging this), does, yes, seem to me an incredibly unreasonable and exaggerated demand.

Preservation has to stop somewhere. Having it stop with the actual historical site seems only reasonable.

And after decades of "eminent domain" being applied against urban families and neighborhoods on behalf of highway projects and new residential/commercial buildings,

How do you know I'd be so enthusiastic about that, either, Kevin? You don't know. You're Mr. Surmise. It's one of your specialties. In any event, buying something via eminent domain is at least preferable to not buying it but forbidding its development, when the possibility of that development was presumed previously in the value of the property.

Mr X says,

Nothing here is important except that here is another town getting what they don't really know they are asking for. Walmart- destroying every last stronghold of culture one town at a time. And... Walmart- putting your fellow Americans out of work just so you can save your greedy self another nickle. Stupid. Disgusting. Vile.

Voila. Exhibit A for "Wal-Mart is well-nigh an intrinsic evil." Again, let's just have Mr. X and his ilk, maybe Kevin, too, lobby for the outlawing of Wal-Mart and leave little towns alone otherwise to develop their land if that is what they decide is best for their people.

The town owns the land and they do not have to pony up any cash to pay themselves.

I thought the land was privately owned, and that Walmart bought it. What do you mean "the town owns the land" ?

And after decades of "eminent domain" being applied against urban families and neighborhoods on behalf of highway projects and new residential/commercial buildings, it is touching to hear property rights being invoked by suburban aficionados of retail retail stores and fast food chains.

That's pretty funny, after seeing all sorts of suburban and rural land taken for highway projects also. And having a vast new highway project being shoved through my suburb about 1 mile away from me. If you want to talk about who is more the "victim" of such eminent domain, I don't think that you're going to show any clear "winner" of that category.

Kevin, I too would rather see a non-profit devoted to veterans than a Walmart or a Vitoria's secret go up there. But that's mainly because I would rather see the non-profit than either of the other two IN ANY CASE. But just because I would rather see it does not mean I, or the community, has the right to demand it. In general, if the community wants to deprive a land owner of the opportunity to develop the land in a manner consistent with the zoning and county plan, the community ought to pony up an equitable replacement for that right: either buy the land, or give the landowner cash for the taking, or trade him suitable substitute land for his enterprise. Any other conclusion would mean that zoning laws and the county plan rules are mere matters of preference, rather than a matter of law.

Please note: I (and Lydia) are not suggesting that aesthetics is not germane to the discussion. It is rather that aesthetic needs do not trump the rule of law, and the principles of private property. The community should serve aesthetics while maintaining law and property rights.

Lydia -- I have addressed the adjacent to/in the vicinity of aspect of this: I referred you to a map which (supposing it is accurate) clearly demonstrates that the Walmart will be an intrusion on the actual historical site, not a distant feature on the horizon.

Furthermore, half the point of bringing in a Walmart, from the perspective of the town's commercial interest, is that it will encourage further commercial development. In five years, so the idea goes, there will be another big box store across the street, some restaurants, maybe a Barnes and Noble, etc. In a decade the whole northern flank of the Wilderness Battlefield has transformed into suburban concrete wilderness.

That said, I am very far from saying that the solution here is a no-brainer, that only the wicked or corrupt or incorrigibly rootless would favor a new Walmart store. I am very far from saying that property rights can be brushed aside for any old claim of historical importance or aesthetic value. And I have no particular grudge against Walmart.

In a word, though I share Kevin's opposition to the development in this case, I cringe at the stridency of his rhetoric; and fear that, considering the general configuration of our politics these days, most anti-development opinion, even when grounded in traditionalist concerns, will usually be translated into grinding tyrannical leftism in practice.

Paul, I have looked at the map and one other. The legend is almost illegible, but as best as I can figure it out, the situation is that the Wal-Mart is proposed on a piece of land that is not part of the Military Park nor protected by any military trust--it is, in fact, adjacent to the battlefield. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "an intrusion on the actual historical site." It certainly appears to be very close--adjacent to--places where military positions are drawn. I have not yet figured out the significance of the boundary line which appears to be labeled as some sort of "approved boundary" by an historical society. It obviously goes in several places (not only this one) beyond the places that have actually been designated as part of the preserved battlefield site and, accordingly, preserved.

But what would you have? My question here has been serious. So the Wal-Mart will not be a _distant_ feature on the horizon. But I stick to what I have been saying all along--that preservation needs to have limits, and that it is an unreasonable burden to require that land be preserved untouched simply because it is _next to_ an historic battlefield, as this appears to be. Is your idea that the taxpayers--either of the town, the state, or the country--should purchase all the land that at the moment is not designated as preserved but that lies within that line drawn by the historical society? Would that satisfy the preservationists, even if Barnes & Noble and Wal-Mart went up just across the street from _that_? And is it fair to ask the taxpayers to foot that bill and to make that extensive of a non-development demand of the town? It _certainly_ is not just to tell private landowners that they must keep the land, to refuse to buy it, while not letting them develop it.

I admit freely to being unmoved by the argument that soon Barnes & Noble will also go in. Yes? And? Again, the idea of preservation is that there is area that _is_ preserved and other area that is _not_ preserved. It seems to me that the argument from Barnes & Noble is supposed to appeal either to a sheer dislike of Barnes & Noble-type developments (in which case perhaps the argument should be for outlawing them anywhere) or to some principle that development generally should be prohibited across the street from, along the flank of, historic sites. In which case we are back to a fairly sweeping non-development mandate.

As I've said, perhaps the preservationists would prefer to have these wedges of land zoned residential rather than commercial, to have houses built rather than stores. But to make that change at this stage of the game would, as far as I can see, instantaneously devalue private property without compensation. But if the other wedges of land are indeed owned by the city as of this moment, perhaps the city could zone them residential now and allow them to be developed in that way. But it does seem to me that that is for the city to decide, and I have no strong opinions on the matter. I don't see an _obligation_ on the part of the city to do this.

Again, though, I have to ask in honesty: Suppose that everything within that "line" (whatever it represents) were preserved from big-box stores. Would not the same objection arise to big-box stores just outside of it? After all, the flanks could still be turned into "suburban wilderness" in that case.

It seems to me that we have to think about what we are asking, concretely, and decide what we want, say it out loud, to see whether it is reasonable.

"half the point of bringing in a Walmart, from the perspective of the town's commercial interest, is that it will encourage further commercial development"

Right. In many of these rural or semi-rural locations Walmart acts as blockbuster, opening residential areas to ongoing development. While the town fathers in many cases see this as a plus, often the people themselves do not.

Near the town where I grew up, the township supervisors, despite strong opposition from many of the people, sold the site of an old rural mental hospital to Walmart. God interevened, however, as the site for the building and parking lot had stabilization problems and eventually slid down the hill and across the adjacent 4-lane highway. Walmart's developer had to pay for the cleanup, and then decided that the site could not be stabilized at all. Thus, at least one semi-rural residential area was spared the fate of being turned into a big-box-and-blacktop monstrosity.

I'd be opposed to any commercial development of an area like the one Paul mentions, but the fact that it's Walmart especially rankles, as they are an outfit which seems to have little concern about anything but the almighty dollar. Their being that close to a Civil War battlefield just seems wrong somehow.

As far as Walmart's being nigh intrinsically evil, I wouldn't go that far. However, I do think that they are one of the primo examples of corporate capitalism at its worst. I will not shop there.

Rob G. says,

While the town fathers in many cases see this as a plus, often the people themselves do not.

But Paul himself admits,

I am told by a Virginia resident that the demand for a Walmart in this county is considerable, and that, accordingly, popular support for it, even this close to the battlefield, is solid.

People who dislike Wal-Mart et. al. have to accept that the people aren't always on their side. That doesn't necessarily mean the people are right. I'm no advocate of the proposition that a majority is always right. But I do think that it is a temptation (I feel it myself in other areas) to try to argue that "democracy" or "the voice of the people" is usually on one's own side of any issue. In this case, it seems that the opponents of Wal-Mart "close to the battlefield" (again, not even on the battlefield) need to be willing to argue a) that this is _so wrong_ that even if it is the real will of the majority of the people of the town/county that will should be overridden and b) that someone should foot the bill for that overriding, either in the form of greatly depreciated property values from sudden rezoning/development prohibition, in the form of purchase at taxpayer expense of fairly large chunks of apparently prime property, or at a minimum (if the city already owns said property) in the form of a vow on the part of the city to forego all commercial development of the property in secula seculorum, no matter what the benefits to real, living people.

That seems to me like a tall order. I certainly do not think any such position can be supported.

Lydia, I'm very reluctant to lay out a guiding principle for historic preservation on the level of generalized abstraction -- not least because of my ignorance of the intricacies of each situation.

For one thing, in this concrete instance we have a dispute concerning Civil War battlefields, which is pretty unique to Virginia. So much of the fighting was concentrated there; and most of the larger battlefields outside of Virginia already enjoy huge protected military parks (in Georgia, for instance, we have the massive Chickamauga park, a beautiful place preserved right in the center of some of the ugliest ex-urban sprawl you'll ever lay eyes on).

I suppose I would favor a higher standard for known Civil War battlefields. If I were a legislator in Virginia, I might even include some aspect of this unusual situation in my campaign platform. Any proposed development within visual range of a major battle ought to face stricter scrutiny, perhaps requiring approval from the General Assembly, or perhaps a select committee pulled from the Assembly: something like that.

As for the question But what would you have?, my answer is that I would have the Board of Supervisors forbear to grant approval to Walmart. They should have voted the proposal down.

I certainly wouldn't wish to go against the will of the people in some tyrannical manner.

What would be a better option, I think, would be a grassroots educational effort aimed at changing minds: "You think a Walmart would be good here, but really it wouldn't, and here's why."

Granted, in some cases the appeal of the Lord Dollar Almighty will trump the less tangible arguments. But in some it won't, and then the results will have been worth the effort.

Rob G,

What would be a better option, I think, would be a grassroots educational effort aimed at changing minds: "You think a Walmart would be good here, but really it wouldn't, and here's why."

I appreciate that suggestion, but I'm sure (from the fact that this did generate opposition) that it was tried. I don't agree, of course, with your dismissive characterization of the disagreement as the triumph of the "Lord Dollar Almighty"--in other words, the assumption that the people are obligated to do without any actual fiscal advantages to their town in the name of...not having Wal-Mart, or beauty, or whatever. But I'm afraid that if Barnes & Noble and any generally suburban look is also on your negative list, as apparently it is on Paul's, you're going to have a pretty sweeping PR campaign to wage to try to convince people that they should have none of this. I certainly cannot imagine being convinced.

Paul, I appreciate your willingness to say what you would favor beyond the unmotivated and ad hoc forbidding of building a Wal-Mart. Here is your idea:

I suppose I would favor a higher standard for known Civil War battlefields. If I were a legislator in Virginia, I might even include some aspect of this unusual situation in my campaign platform. Any proposed development within visual range of a major battle ought to face stricter scrutiny, perhaps requiring approval from the General Assembly, or perhaps a select committee pulled from the Assembly: something like that.

Let's look at what this would involve. First, it would involve state interference in local zoning, building, and development decisions. That seems like a minus right there. Second, it would involve on-going, to some degree unpredictable, case-by-case decision-making regarding all land use within visual range of a major battlefield. Presumably this decision-making would be done on grounds of beauty and of the likelihood of more traffic in the general area and the encouragement of further development. Let us surmise that at least some land in visual range of such battlefields is privately owned and is, as of now, zoned in such a way locally that it could in theory be developed. The establishment of such a committee with such powers _instantly_ devalues that property, without compensation, for now it can only be guessed what development can be done on it, if any, and what aesthetic and other regulations would constrain that development. Yet the property value prior to such legislation, the property value, for example, that determined its purchase price if it was recently purchased, was based on a situation in which such relatively unpredictable and potentially very strict limitation did not obtain. The property will now be harder to sell. That all seems to me unjust, and it also is an injustice that covers a pretty wide swathe of land. More: Since one of the very purposes of this, as manifested by the situation that occasioned the proposal, is to prevent commercial development, traffic, etc., it appears that this state-level committee is being set up _for the purpose_ of limiting the probable financial betterment of local communities. This is questionably just. It also puts a greater burden on the local taxpayers, if they (via the city or county) own the land in question, to maintain it despite its devalued status, which will in turn make it harder to sell. So the same injustices that apply to private owners apply also to city or county ownership, with the additional point that the state is apparently quite willing, if not perhaps even eager, to keep the towns poorer merely for the sake of preserving the view from historic battlefields.

I cannot, therefore, agree that this is a good plan. The goal of keeping the view aesthetically pleasing and preventing traffic and commercial use adjacent to a battlefield does not seem to me to justify the costs to real people living now.

What I find problematic is support of the unspoken assumption that "financial advantage" or "fiscal betterment" of a town, county, etc., is/should be the default position of local government. It's as if "increasing revenue" and/or "bringing in new jobs" are the standards by which all so-called development is judged, and it's up to the opponents of any development to prove otherwise.

Whatever this is, it's surely not conservative, as both the liberal democrats who've run my county for 50+ years, and the ostensibly "conservative" GOP leadership in my particular township engage in this type of wallet-first rhetoric/behavior constantly.

There is another assumption going on here that has not been mentioned and challenged: that development NEAR a preservation site adversely affects the purposes of the preservation.

Presumably, the point of preserving the historical battlefield is to retain a connection with the past, a connection with the spirit and traditions that moved the parties in the event, and to maintain a present-day respect for the roots of our own reality.

One of the perennial problems with historical sites actually achieving this objective is that they are not visited / observed as much as one would like. People pass them by, or even simply don't even know they exist. However, if you put other attractions near them, all of a sudden they become part of the mix, and it opens up much more opportunity to attract visitors (on somewhat the same dynamic as the Walmart as an attractor for other businesses).

The Bull Run park is right next to any number of businesses in and near Manassas, and the Manassas battlefield has Interstate 66 running right along it. I dare say that if you investigate, you will find that these battlefields have way more visitors than Wilderness does. Now, which of the battlefields achieve the purposes for which it was preserved better?

This is borne out in all sorts of in-city historical sites: they attract people just walking by to come in and learn a little bit. I just visited Annapolis, whose old but still-in-use state house is a historical site in its own right and situated in the midst of a historical town. There are all sorts of historical places right next to restaurants, shops, law offices, and boat rental places.

Certainly, some kinds of development would directly and critically impede making the battlefield more desirable an attraction: a large chemical plant with industrial smokestack, for example. But Manassas demonstrates that a strip mall does not defeat the whole purpose of the preservation, not by a long margin.

Which is not to say that I think it is somehow preferable to have a strip mall next to Wilderness. All things considered, I think a buffer area of less noxious types of development would be better. But that's the sort of choice that the give and take, compromise, and the hurly-burly of politics is supposed to decide. Which it is doing.

First, it would involve state interference in local zoning, building, and development decisions. That seems like a minus right there. Second, it would involve on-going, to some degree unpredictable, case-by-case decision-making regarding all land use within visual range of a major battlefield. Presumably this decision-making would be done on grounds of beauty and of the likelihood of more traffic in the general area and the encouragement of further development.

This is, in my view, all to the good. My ideal situation would be were land adjacent to a major battlefield would be so unpredictable in its status that commercial developers would just leave off trying to buy it, and move on down the road five miles.

Also, I think that it is reasonable to expect that anyone who owns property within spitting distance of a major battlefield ought to know that his property is of a very unusual character.

Your conjectures about how historical preservation measures would affect property values seem reasonable enough, but I'm not about to accept as given that because a man owns property next to a battlefield which can't be (commercially) built on, therefore, in all cases, his property's value must diminish. I wonder what the historical statistics would show about plots that have been grandfathered into national parks, military parks, etc. under private ownership for three generations (or whatever those agreements allow). How exactly did their value change with the establishment of the parks?

Finally, the principle of private property that I embrace as nearly absolute is the one that says a man cannot be thrown off his land by the state. It is the security of owned and possessed property. It does not embrace a mass of implications about that property's exchange value, much less a mass of implications about its potential speculative value in the event of future development.

Good points by both Rob G and Tony.

Rob G:

What I find problematic is support of the unspoken assumption that "financial advantage" or "fiscal betterment" of a town, county, etc., is/should be the default position of local government. It's as if "increasing revenue" and/or "bringing in new jobs" are the standards by which all so-called development is judged, and it's up to the opponents of any development to prove otherwise.

In my preceding comments alluding to what you mention herein, I don't see how you can say this especially if a town is suffering such tremendous toil that it is nearing or actually is in bankruptcy.

How else should members of a particular town found immediately ensconced in such a situation go about making such a decision concerning a matter of development that would ultimately resolve their financial insolubility?

So to summarize, as a country we suffer from commercial under-development (The limits to preservation have to start somewhere - classic!)and any criticisms of a national NoWhere scarred by the ugly, soul-deadening uniformity of Wall-Mart’s, Victoria Secrets, Arby’s, and Midas Mufflers could result in a "grinding tyrannical leftism in practice." After all, pre-occupations with; the maintenance of distinct, particular communities, preservation of cultural inheritances, a restoration of a sense of the sacred and fondness for the natural world are reserved for aesthetes and can easily be exploited by Planning Boards run by bohemian Lefty’s. Better to embrace the spirit of Babbittry and find solace in an oppressive landscape of universal dreariness and mindless conformity. The trick is, while doing so, to bemoan the ruinous consequences of the Lowest Common Denominator on other aspects of our culture with a straight face. The occassioanl rhetorical hat-tips to goods greater than economic expansion never seem to manifest themselves in practice.

I commend Cardinal Ratzinger’s The Spirit of the Liturgy to those who believe the effects of vulgarity and banality on our interior states are legitimate concerns that cannot be confined to Mass or the classroom. Everyone else can debate the merits of lingerie stores versus cinder-block Depots. The fries are on me.

There you go again, Kevin.

I'm with you on the merits of this, man! But you seem only satisfied fighting a solo battle against the tides of modernity, a fight which has been abandoned by everyone unwilling to embrace the full zeal of your rhetoric.

I am particularly impressed by your facility in dismissing worries of leftist tyranny. Bravo. No one's ever seen any of that. Red herring for sure.

"How else should members of a particular town found immediately ensconced in such a situation go about making such a decision concerning a matter of development that would ultimately resolve their financial insolubility?"

That's different than having an automatic default assumption that more business is always better. Morphine is great if you're having your leg amputated, but it probably should be avoided if you've got a sinus headache or athlete's foot.

Kevin,

So to summarize, as a country we suffer from commercial under-development (The limits to preservation have to start somewhere - classic!)and any criticisms of a national NoWhere scarred by the ugly, soul-deadening uniformity of Wall-Mart’s, Victoria Secrets, Arby’s, and Midas Mufflers could result in a "grinding tyrannical leftism in practice."

Reserve this kind of fuming rhetoric for the likes of Lydia et al. who may very well advocate such endeavour; however, note that this will do little more than exacerbate the plight of exactly those who find themselves in towns caught within the very grips of such devestating adversity that their only salvation lies within the very sanctioning of such development as this.

I doubt that such people, undoubtedly more connected to their land than you and I are to our own rather sterile urban landscapes, would actually accomodate, let alone, even embrace such an option if there were actually other alternatives.

I would request, therefore, you stone those who deserve to be stoned (i.e., people who actually undoubtedly are engaged in such a crusade as you yourself so colorfully describe) and leave the innocent (whose very circumstances are so desparate, they are unfortunately left without benefit for another alternative) alone, who no doubt suffer not only the obvious negative repercussions of their decision, but that they had to deliberately choose exactly that choice over and above the pristine landscape they do actually cherish -- more than you or I will ever know.

I'm not about to accept as given that because a man owns property next to a battlefield which can't be (commercially) built on, therefore, in all cases, his property's value must diminish.

I would think whether or not that happened would depend on how the property was zoned. If it was zoned single-family residential, for example, then as long as one could continue unambiguously to have single-family residences built on the property, it would probably not be devalued by the establishment of the committee and legislation you recommend, Paul. But if there were a real probability--arising, for example, from legislative history and intent as the law was being passed--that the committee would nix even building houses or running telephone poles, for example, to property presently zoned for residential building, then it seems evident that the property would be devalued. If the property is zoned commercial, then presumably recent purchase price as well as the property taxes the person has already paid have been based on the assumption that commercial development is possible. In that case, as well, the devaluing effect is evident. This seems wrong, particularly without compensation's being given.

Finally, the principle of private property that I embrace as nearly absolute is the one that says a man cannot be thrown off his land by the state. It is the security of owned and possessed property. It does not embrace a mass of implications about that property's exchange value, much less a mass of implications about its potential speculative value in the event of future development.

I don't know about a principle that is nearly absolute. But I do know that there are obvious cases where regulation has unjustly devalued land. There are _real examples_ of people who have in good faith purchased land at a price that was conditioned on the part of both buyer and seller by the knowledge that development was (then) possible. Then, the government discovers some endangered species on the land and stops the development. The property owner is left with a white elephant on his hands which may well prove unsaleable. This is wrong. You can call the value on the basis of which he paid the price he did "speculative." _Of course_ purchase price is set by the expected use of the land. But what the government has done in those cases is wrong. There has been a case here in Michigan where an elderly couple spent their life savings purchasing lake front property, planning to build their retirement home there. Then, in this same ex post facto way, the state officials decided that one corner of their property is "wetland," and now it is going to be very difficult for them to find a way to fit in their house and driveway on the property. Instant serious devaluation of the property that is the investment of a lifetime's savings. That is wrong.

It seems to me that the committee you envisage would have something very much like this effect w.r.t. people who have already purchased the property before the legislation goes into effect.

Rob G.,

What I find problematic is support of the unspoken assumption that "financial advantage" or "fiscal betterment" of a town, county, etc., is/should be the default position of local government. It's as if "increasing revenue" and/or "bringing in new jobs" are the standards by which all so-called development is judged, and it's up to the opponents of any development to prove otherwise.

I don't know exactly what you mean by "default position," but it seems to me that the fiscal betterment of a town _is_ a good. Of course it isn't to be pursued at all costs--for example, if someone is convinced that legalizing prostitution will bring in revenue, that is obviously not legitimate even if it _would_ bring in revenue.

I will certainly admit that if we are talking about people's having jobs vs. not having jobs, being able to stay in a town rather than move away, their kids' being able to earn money for college within striking distance of home, etc., and, yes, even their being able to pay lower prices for legitimate goods that they need, I find it extremely difficult to see that the mere _ugliness_ of the proposed building that brings these goods to the town is a sufficient negative that the building shouldn't be allowed. I don't quite understand the strong opposition to fiscal advantage arguments. Anyone would almost think that this is just a matter of Smith's having two yachts rather than one! Obviously, we are talking about more basic financial advantages than that.

I am particularly impressed by your facility in dismissing worries of leftist tyranny.

Go ahead, Paul, show me the leftist tyranny that has produced the incredible replication of Placeless Places all over this country. There are 8000 Wal-Marts, so the case for suppression seems imaginary at best. We are in agreement in this particular case, but on the bigger picture, you are erecting a straw-man between us, and I am disappointed. Besides, if you think I'm strident now, think of my poor wife when the word Mall forms on her lips every leap year or so.

Ari, my ire is mainly directed at Lydia and Tony. Sorry if my spray-gun caused any collateral damage.

I said that "most anti-development opinion, even when grounded in traditionalist concerns, will usually be translated into grinding tyrannical leftism in practice." I did not say that leftist tyranny gave us 8000 Walmarts.

Lydia has given us some excellent examples of leftists tyranny, in the form of crazy environmentalist regulations that ruin property owners.

What I find problematic is support of the unspoken assumption that "financial advantage" or "fiscal betterment" of a town, county, etc., is/should be the default position of local government. It's as if "increasing revenue" and/or "bringing in new jobs" are the standards by which all so-called development is judged, and it's up to the opponents of any development to prove otherwise.

Generally speaking it is justifiably the default position. However, in the case of Wal-Mart there is a proven track record of abusing market power to sell goods at very low costs until the competition is obliterated and then raising the prices almost back to where they were. Furthermore, the wages that Wal-Mart pays combined with that practice should suffice to service as evidence that Wal-Mart's presence will be at best neutral for the community, and likely to be harmful in the long run.

Go ahead, Paul, show me the leftist tyranny that has produced the incredible replication of Placeless Places all over this country.

Well, since you asked, here it is: eminent domain (as understood in modern times). In the 18th and 19th centuries, before the "progressive era," it was understood to be a public purpose in the strictest sense. In the 20th century, eminent domain became a tool which social engineers could use to rework entire cities, mainly by seizing "blighted" property from the poor, minorities and small business owners.

Today, eminent domain is even able to be used to just increase the tax revenues of the government.

All "for the greater good," mind you.

I did not say that leftist tyranny gave us 8000 Walmarts.

Lydia has given us some excellent examples of leftists tyranny, in the form of crazy environmentalist regulations that ruin property owners

I know what you meant; leftist tyranny would mean fewer Wal-Marts. Except it hasn't it happened. As for Lydia's "excellent examples" none deal with the commercial zoning. She can argue about environmentalists all she wants, but she is changing the subject. The national landscape contradicts your fear that the Left is repressing the advance of the Big Box economy.

In the 20th century, eminent domain became a tool which social engineers could use to rework entire cities, mainly by seizing "blighted" property from the poor, minorities and small business owners.

Exactly, but commercial interests also benefited from the wide usage of eminent domain and still do.

Exactly, but commercial interests also benefited from the wide usage of eminent domain and still do.

Commercial interests have always had a place in Fascist ideology. Since progressivism is nothing more than American-style Fascism, that shouldn't surprise you.

...commercial interests also benefited from the wide usage of eminent domain and still do.

Unfortunately, this is as true as it is ubiquitous.

Indeed, there are a great section of homes in many urban landscapes I know of which were obtained via eminent domain and ultimately decimated, where their impoverished households received merely a pittance (which, consequently, marked these poor families inevitable entrance into the homeless community); all so that an entire array of shopping plazas and what not could fill in those areas.

Sorry Mike T, your otherwise sensible comment came with a hitch, so let me clarify; eminent domain is not the primary cause for our Placeless Places, but I agree if you in finding their prevalence a form of tyranny. The primary culprits are business interests and zoning Boards are rarley Leftist preserves.

Is Sam Walton a fascist?

Geesh, and I'm called strident.

'I don't know exactly what you mean by "default position"'

and

'I don't quite understand the strong opposition to fiscal advantage arguments.'

My point is that often the fiscal advantage arguments aren't posed as arguments at all, but are instead virtually presupposed. This is what I meant by a "default position."

"Is Sam Walton a fascist?"

Walton was no fascist. But his company has veered in a loosely 'fascist' direction in the 15 or so years since his death (if by fascist you mean big business and government scratching each other's backs for the mutual accumulation of money and power).

Is Sam Walton a fascist?

Geesh, and I'm called strident.

I never called Sam Walton a Fascist. If he approved of the tactics that Wal-Mart uses today which are based heavily on local and state subsidies and abuses of eminent domain then I would say that he was indeed a Fascist at heart.

Sorry Mike T, your otherwise sensible comment came with a hitch, so let me clarify; eminent domain is not the primary cause for our Placeless Places, but I agree if you in finding their prevalence a form of tyranny. The primary culprits are business interests and zoning Boards are rarley Leftist preserves.

I never said that it was the primary cause, but eminent domain is critical to big business being able to move in and get what it wants. It is arguably the most powerful tool in its arsenal for getting up to speed quickly. If Wal-Mart had to negotiate with local property owners in every case, its ability to get good, contiguous plots of land at cheap prices would be crippled. In my wife's hometown, Wal-Mart probably wouldn't have been able to even buy inside the town at all if eminent domain hadn't been used.

Sam Walton himself might not have actually been a fascist; however, his children, to whom his empire was ultimately bequeathed and by whose collective wills it continues to abide by, could arguably be characterized as such.

I'll add for the defenders of Capitalism that Walmart's offenses against the economic system which gave it life and success are considerable too. Recently Walmart endorsed health care reform. It is generally conjectured that part of the reason for this is that it will be supremely expensive for business, but Walmart being the biggest badass on the block will be the last to fall. So it will survive and thrive by the reduction of the competition.

leftist tyranny would mean fewer Wal-Marts

Why should this be true? Corporations will not vanish under leftist tyranny -- they will just be enlarged and embraced into the state more fully. That is Belloc's exact argument in The Servile State.

Recently Walmart endorsed health care reform. It is generally conjectured that part of the reason for this is that it will be supremely expensive for business, but Walmart being the biggest badass on the block will be the last to fall. So it will survive and thrive by the reduction of the competition.

But this is also the same strategy employed by a certain big badass tobacco manufacturer as regarding certain legislation concerning regulation of such by the FDA itself; indeed, the only reason why this particular, prominent tobacco manufacturer is ironically in favor of such a thing is because it will undoubtedly provide them with very substantial advantage in the foreseeable future wherein they will end up being amongst the few or, if not, the only remaining competitor in the field once the strictest regulations come into full effect, which only a company as immense as theirs can enduringly weather and ultimately survive.

I am of two minds, here. On the one hand, people have right to self-determination; on the other hand, people sometimes make those decisions based on either emotional, uninformed, or selfish reasons. In this case, how many of the people voting (I mean this, seriously) can give the correct date to within a month of the battle? History has been so abused by the media that many young people don't even know when the War Between the States occurred, much less that it is another name for the Civil War. This being the case, would a public education campaign gain anything as far as clarifying the issues so that a truly informed decision can be made?

I am not in favor of Walmart. I have seen it, in tandem with other big box stores, destroy the stability of neighborhood shopping centers and malls. It happened about a mile from where I live. A whole community center gone, because a mega-town-mall-thingy went up a few miles down the road.

If the people want a Walmart (it is their decision, after all), perhaps it can be written into the lease that a portion of their profits must go to preserve the historic site.

Of course, a solution that would satisfy everyone - antigravity. The the Walmart could float above the ground and customers could enter big using cool low gravity tubes.

The Chicken

Note to self: when you're going for the cute tagline, check the spelling.

The Chicken

...and don't forget to proofread.

The Chicken

Wal-Mart has, in two communities within twenty-minutes of my abode, muscled in, driven out competitors within a decent radius, and then closed those very facilities upon failing to realize profit margins quite as high as desired and envisioned, leaving derelict commercial buildings with no reasonable prospect of occupancy, and communities even more poorly serviced than they were prior to Wal-Mart's arrival. Loathsome corporation.

Fine, Maximos. So as I said, try to get it outlawed or something, if you think you can make the case. My problem concerns letting people buy things at one price and then springing it on them that, surprise!, the property isn't worth what they just paid for it, because now they can't use it in the way they reasonably assumed they could when they bought it. In some ways, the "loathsome" Wal-Mart angle is a distraction.

Paul,

I can tell that you and I do have a non-trivial disagreement, in that you would like Wal-Mart, Barnes & Noble, and all manner of other types of "suburban wilderness" stores forbidden by a committee from building within sight of a battlefield. I think that's exceedingly draconian.

But I might at least be able to introduce some doubts about the state congressional aesthetics committee you envisage by pointing out the plausibility that such a committee would be occupied by people who would go farther than you would go and in directions you would not like. I'm glad that you regard my environmental examples as cases of outrageous government action. But consider how similar the powers there are to those of the committee you envisage: A government entity has major powers to bring in some other value regarding preservation--in this case, of the aesthetic value of a view from an historic sight, in those cases of wetlands or endangered species--and use that value to forbid property use while leaving the property owner holding the bag. Both you and Maximos have used the word "speculative" to describe the devaluation of property issue I have raised. Evidently he, and to some extent you as well, consider that a fairly negligible consideration on the grounds that it refers to what you consider to be merely "speculative" property value. But could not something similar be said in the environmental cases? Someone bought the property with the intent to build on it, then was not allowed to do so. Was not his expectation of being able to build "speculative"? If we are to pooh-pooh the fact of property devaluation on the basis of sudden changes in usage permission, then I cannot see why such pooh-poohing should be limited so that it touches only those owners with whom you do not sympathize--say, people planning and reaosnably expecting to be able to sell to Wal-Mart, or Wal-Mart itself--but not those owners with whom you do--retirees planning to build a house. It all depends on what the committee decides, doesn't it? And the committee's mandate is the preservation of the overriding value, not the interests of the property owner, who is, to some extent, regarded as the person to be restrained and stopped from doing something "bad." Almost any future intended use of property, and present purchase price based on it, can be said to be "speculative." I think you should therefore be cautious about the kind of set-up you described as well as about dismissing so-called "speculative" property value considerations.

Recently Walmart endorsed health care reform.

It figures;

JACKSON, Mo. -- A collision with a semi-trailer truck seven years ago left 52-year-old Deborah Shank permanently brain-damaged and in a wheelchair. Her husband, Jim, and three sons found a small source of solace: a $700,000 accident settlement from the trucking company involved. After legal fees and other expenses, the remaining $417,000 was put in a special trust. It was to be used for Mrs. Shank's care.

Instead, all of it is now slated to go to Mrs. Shank's former employer, Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119551952474798582.html?mod=todays_us_page_one

Corporations will not vanish under leftist tyranny -- they will just be enlarged and embraced into the state more fully. That is Belloc's exact argument in The Servile State.

Is that the context in which you made your earlier comment? Rest assured, it is not Lydia's and hard to see how the preservationist, localist, anti- Big Box ethos I described gets transformed into a vehicle for The Servile State, when it is an antidote to it. At any rate, glad to see our disagreement is narrowing. I expect you to join us at Vespers.

Lydia, I'm sympathetic to landowners in certain of these cases, but scarcely on the basis of some global default in favour of existing zoning regulations, or zoning regulations fine tuned to maximize the opportunity of people to profit, yes, speculatively, by purchasing land not to live or work, but to flip for a profit, or to develop, as though this were a self-justifying good. The entire system - and with friends in real estate, I know how this works, and how local governments are usually kept creatures of developers - is geared towards the perpetuation of indefinite, unsustainable growth and expansion, with all manner of deleterious consequences, and it's about bloody time someone, somewhere, in some manner, began to emphasize all of the competing goods, some of them even economic, that are squeezed out by this monolithic focus on property owners exploiting zoning to flip for a profit. This is a perfect illustration of the problem of the seen and unseen; conservatives, on the whole, see only the guy who wasn't allowed to speculate in property by some meanies on a less-than-supine-before-business zoning board, but not the businesses driven out by path-dependent development, nor the environmental costs of rampant development, nor yet the deformation of our agricultural system. I'll say it again: this problem will never be resolved until and unless the American people get it through their addled brains that the purpose of authority is not to so order the world that everyone may get rich, without regard to limitations of any sort, be they natural or communal. Some Americans really need to have their fundamental fantasies traduced, because the rest of us are not obligated to endure their externalities, least of all in the name of a asocial, even antisocial, conception of property rights.

Kevin, that story is so morally foul, and the "contracts" on the basis of which Wal-Mart makes such a claim so exploitative, that I fear I shall have to go to confession if I spend another minute contemplating the two of them. Vile, vile.

Rest assured, it is not Lydia's and hard to see how the preservationist, localist, anti-Big Box ethos I described gets transformed into a vehicle for The Servile State, when it is an antidote to it. At any rate, glad to see our disagreement is narrowing. I expect you to join us at Vespers.

Classic.

The concluding statement is like a maraschino cherry on top of a tactfully delivered retort.

Too bad it wasn't irony-laden as those in past deliveries.

I expect Mr. Cella to accordingly submit to such remonstrance as this.

Why Kevin is concerned to deliver retorts and irony-laden remonstrances to his ally in the discussion is what perplexes me. We both favor efforts to keep the Walmart away from the Wilderness Battlefield; what "disagreement" is narrowing?

What does concerns me is why Kevin is so committed to teaching the lesson that all of suburban or exurban America is sunk in depravity and corruption, that even his allies must come under the lash of his remonstrance for neglecting to share his monomania.

Perhaps I shall go to Walmart tomorrow and soak in the wickedness of my countrymen; or better yet just imagine the pitiful fools from my home.

But of course the lesson of suburban America is the lesson of all men after the Fall: oppression by sin, distraction by folly; and ignorance about potential remedies. The lesson is no grand insight. We all know of it, for the afflictions of this land of in that category of things we cannot not know.

So I guess the disagreement (which may or may not be narrowing) concerns the wisdom of constantly talking down a deeply afflicted country, of sneering at her failures, deriding her defenders. I guess a man even indifferent to Walmart can only be a crook or a fool. It must be cold hostility or nothing, huh?

In the great film Wall-E at least the thoroughly-sunk spacefaring humans were still capable of independence and justice. In Kevin's picture of America what hope is left?

Anyway, this thread has probably run its course. Since both Kevin and I are big fans of Maximos' latest, let's take the conversation to there.

What does concerns me is why Kevin is so committed to teaching the lesson that all of suburban or exurban America is sunk in depravity and corruption... Perhaps I shall go to Walmart tomorrow and soak in the wickedness of my countrymen; or better yet just imagine the pitiful fools from my home.

Uhhh... did you read the most recent post from your fellow co-contributor?

Kevin is merely a pre-pubescent student at such things while Maximos, by far, is the ultimate Master.

Scathing critique, to say the least.

Is that the context in which you made your earlier comment? Rest assured, it is not Lydia's and hard to see how the preservationist, localist, anti- Big Box ethos I described gets transformed into a vehicle for The Servile State, when it is an antidote to it. At any rate, glad to see our disagreement is narrowing. I expect you to join us at Vespers.

What you miss, Kevin, is that the elites who run those large corporations are the same elites in government. They are two wings of the same bird of prey. Hell, you could probably throw in the leaders of most of the unions and you'd have the bird's tail feathers too.

But of course the lesson of suburban America is the lesson of all men after the Fall: oppression by sin, distraction by folly; and ignorance about potential remedies.

So I guess the disagreement (which may or may not be narrowing) concerns the wisdom of constantly talking down a deeply afflicted country, of sneering at her failures, deriding her defenders.

I have argued that the American people never freely or consciously chose their current conditions, and view the vast majority of my fellows as victims of a horrible attempt by a technocratic elite to build a godless civilization. In other words, I have defended my countrymen, especially those who reside on the lower end of the so-called socio-economic scale. Surprisingly, given your purported vigilance against assaults on our countrymen, others here have done just the opposite, yet this fact has repeatedly escaped your attention. Why is that?

If we're going to share the same trench, I'm going to pray your range of vision dramatically improves.

What you miss, Kevin, is that the elites who run those large corporations are the same elites in government. They are two wings of the same bird of prey.

Uh, Mike T., I've said that the Treasury Department, is little more than the D.C. clearinghouse for Wall Street, so not sure what I'm missing.

Uh, Mike T., I've said that the Treasury Department, is little more than the D.C. clearinghouse for Wall Street, so not sure what I'm missing.

No, that shows that you have missed everything because you believe that the government is subordinate to big business rather than the two working together as peers for the same purpose because the same elite controls both.

Government at every level is deeply in debt. Wall Street's leading light, Goldman Sachs is enjoying a record year of profits. There is no doubt which sector is the subordinate one.

There is plenty of doubt.

Goldman profits derive from a variety of factors. One obvious though rather pedestrian factor is that its competition has been winnowed. Two Wall Street i-banks are gone; one of the major actors in shadow banking is being dismembered; several UK banks are nationalized; many commercial banks are on the ropes; etc.

Another reason is the adjustments in accounting standards, of a dubious variety in my layman's judgment. Another is the support of securitization markets by the Fed. Another is extremely low interest rates.

But the interesting thing is that banks like Goldman are being propped up by the government in order to . . . lend capital to the government. The only real growth industry in America right now is government. (And health care, which may soon be another aspect of government.) The government's subsidies have briefly boosted auto manufacturers; others are funding construction projects around the country; still others biofuels, (though predictably that ain't working real well).

Government is in the saddle right now. That Goldman will profit by the financing of its expenditures is indeed an noteworthy fact; that Goldman is manifestly, undoubtedly directing of those expenditures, with government subordinate, is a much more questionable claim.

Kevin, if you can point to some writing of yours vigorously defending our countrymen, I will desist in my arguments on this point. But right now I have some difficulty imagining how congenially you would find "sharing a trench" with "those who reside on the lower end of the so-called socio-economic scale." What if the man or woman next to you shops regularly at Walmart or Home Depot or Target, and generally does not hold these companies in contempt? What if he, horror of horrors, actually has somewhat warm feelings toward them. Perhaps he lived in coastal Mississippi three years ago during Katrina, when Walmart's supply-line brilliance exceeded the efficiency of the government by several days, enabling it to bring his family food and aid after the storm? What if he lives somewhere in suburbia now and doesn't hate it, but feels some gratitude for the fact that he has a house at all, and indeed is capable of some indignation at ceaseless denigrations of his way of life?

I am far from saying that our imaginary Mississippian's way of life cannot be critiqued; I am only saying that the stridency of your critique does stand in some tension with your stated sympathy for him.

Government at every level is deeply in debt. Wall Street's leading light, Goldman Sachs is enjoying a record year of profits. There is no doubt which sector is the subordinate one.

All that means is that the elites have finally begun to indulge in the sort of cronyism that one sees in most parts of Africa.

I have argued that the American people never freely or consciously chose their current conditions, and view the vast majority of my fellows as victims of a horrible attempt by a technocratic elite to build a godless civilization.

Your view of the average American is downright Rousseauean. It's just the noble savage theory rewritten for modern civilization with the average American playing the virtuous, hapless commoner corrupted by more powerful forces. Like Aristocles, you give the average American too much credit; they are getting the government they deserve.

Kev, dude, you can't win! You make a pitch for higher standards and you're an elitist. You stick up for the average Joe and you're a Rousseauian!!

Rob G., I hear ya! I'm enjoying Paul Cella's;
I have some difficulty imagining how congenially you would find "sharing a trench" with "those who reside on the lower end of the so-called socio-economic scale." What if the man or woman next to you shops regularly at Walmart or Home Depot or Target, and generally does not hold these companies in contempt?

As a former garbage man and public union employee (you know the type; a parasite), as well as Teamster (thug, of course), I get a kick out of his assumption that I suffer from a dualistic us v them mentality that compels me to see my neighbors as evil if they enjoy shopping at Wal-Mart.

What is curious though, is that he never raised this point of attack on other subjects; like say abortion. Does he also think I (should)hate the women who have procured them? Being anti-war, should I hate our servicemen? Curious that this tact wasn't raised before. Exchanging personal details on forums like this can easily veer into a narcissitic exercise of virtue validation and I won't let his presumptions about my own socio-economic background and my alleged misanthropy towards those from it cause me to play that game. For now.

"What if the man or woman next to you shops regularly at Walmart or Home Depot or Target, and generally does not hold these companies in contempt?"

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. My current budgetary situation would be summat improved if I shopped at Big Cheap, and I understand why many folks find it necessary to do so. Myself, I can't make the trade-off, however, just like I can't buy Tyson chicken or ConAgra products, or eat fast food. I try to avoid having my hard-earned cash go to these monstrosities as much as possible.

My current budgetary situation would be some what improved if I shopped at Big Cheap, and I understand why many folks find it necessary to do so

Oh I know, the American people are being economically coerced into buying cheap goods and bad food as a result of wage stagnation, the loss of self-sustaining local economies and the false consciousness of the consumerist ethos, but to say so is to declare oneself an enemy to the Common Man. I confess to occassionally shopping at Costco and feel very guilty about it.

Kevin, since I don't know you personally, all I can go on is your comments here at the site. Based on that content I'll constrain myself to saying that if it is bereft of misanthropy, then I'm a donut.

Well Paul, maybe there is something missing at your core.