STONEWALLING THE MALL

"It is not easy for a Republican, particularly a conservative Republican, to advocate the taking of land, particularly when that is bound to be expensive, but it seems warranted in this emergency case," said Gordon J. Humphrey, a senator from New Hampshire in response to the January 1988 announcement by the Hazel/Peterson Companies of the addition of a regional shopping mall to the William Center's residential-office complex. In Humphrey's opinion, the mall and its accompanying traffic and parking lots would turn the Manassas National Battlefield Park into "little more than a pastoral backdrop for another metropolitan concrete complex." To prevent this, Humphrey supported a legislative taking bill, which would automatically put the land under federal ownership, leaving resolution of its cost to later discussions. Senator Humphrey's remarkable stand, especially under the Reagan administration's call for less government interference in local affairs, demonstrates the far-reaching effects of this third battle of Manassas. [1]

These effects have been enduring. Manassas battlefield park became a household word in the late 1980s and continues to have star power. Congressional budget battles threatening to shut down the federal government prompt news reporters to trek out to Manassas and show viewers what they would lose if this park (and others like it) were forced to close. This name recognition has had other effects. Public interest in Manassas has translated into millions of dollars donated to battlefield preservation efforts and expanded membership in preservation organizations. Congress has aided the work of private groups by protecting sites and expanding boundaries at existing parks. The Manassas mall controversy raised public awareness about historic preservation in ways no other previous issue had.

 

 

CONTINUED