CWPT, NPCA File Brief In Wal-mart County Suit
ORANGE, Va. – A friend of the court brief was filed Jan, 25 in support of the plaintiffs opposed to a Wal-mart Supercenter at the entrance to the Wilderness Battlefield. A letter from the National Park Service director in opposition to the project was part of the filing. The Civil War Preservation Trust (CWPT) and the National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) filed the amicus brief asking the Orange County Circuit Court to “grant the relief requested by the Plaintiffs in order to preserve the Wilderness Battlefield for future generations.” CWPT spokesman Jim Campi said the purpose of the amicus brief was “to further underscore to the court the historic significance of the Wilderness Battlefield. In particular, we wanted to demonstrate the role Congress played in identifying the Wilderness as a priority Civil War battlefield, as well as note the scores of elected officials and historians who consider the Wilderness as a national historic treasure which ought to be preserved.” Sharon Pandak, attorney for the Orange Board of Supervisors, commented in an email, “We will be filing a response.” The plaintiffs are a coalition of six individuals living near the proposed site and two organizations, the National Trust for Historic Preservation and Friends of Wilderness Battlefield. They originally filed the complaint last Sept. 23 to stop the Orange County Board of Supervisors’ approval of the special use permit Wal-mart requires to build the store at this location. On Oct. 13 the county asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit. The two sides are due to give their arguments in front of a judge on Feb. 3. Amicus curiae, the full term, is Latin for “friend of the court,” referring to someone who is not a party to the case. Such a participant “believes that the court’s decision may affect its interest,” wrote late Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist in The Supreme Court. The amicus brief was submitted by Scott D. Helsel, attorney with Walton and Adams, P.C., a Reston, Va., law firm, who is working pro bono. Its stated purpose is two-fold: First, “to draw the Court’s attention to the national significance of the Wilderness Battlefield and to provide important historical context.” Second, “to give voice to the substantial opposition that exists against the Board’s approval of the special use permit.” The brief establishes the CWPT and NPCAs’ credentials, describes the May 5-6, 1864, battle and the history of the national battlefield park, and explains the creation and findings of the Civil War Sites Advisory Committee and the American Battlefield Protection Plan. The conclusion notes that the county supervisors should have recognized the Civil War’s upcoming 150th anniversary as an opportunity to promote tourism instead of giving little consideration to the harm the development would do to the Wilderness and other portions of the battlefield within Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park. National Park Service Director Jonathan B. Jarvis, in the exhibit letter addressed to CWPT President James Lighthizer and NPCA President Tom Kiernan, expressed “the seriousness of the NPS’s concerns about the detrimental impacts of the proposed development on the Wilderness Battlefield.” At the end of his letter, Jarvis wrote, “The NPS accordingly is deeply concerned about the development at issue, and the NPS does not believe the County has taken actions necessary to address our concerns.” Campi said, “No one has articulated better than he did in his letter the historic significance of the Wilderness and the threats that confront the battlefield.”
|
