Dear Mr. Montgomery:
Is it your understanding that Tricord plans to sell 140 acres to Civil War Battlefield Trust or is it that Tricord plans to sell a restrictive covenant (easement) on 140 acres to Civil War Battlefield Trust?
The Free Lance-Star constantly refers to a sale of land as the last step in the preservation transaction, whereas the CWPT's press releases and letters refer only to "protection" and "preservation," never to land purchase outright.
Or perhaps this issue (sale of land vs. sale of easement) is yet to be settled?
Sorry to bother you, but the parties to the transaction are keeping quiet and I am trying to analyze the deal in my online journal, Civil War Bookshelf (http://cwbn.blogspot.com).
If you wish to answer off-the-record, that will be honored.
I received this response today:
Mr. Rotov,
Please accept my apologies for the delayed response, but I have been away from the office, with very limited office e-mail access. Because the Tricord rezoning application on which the Planning Commission acted Wednesday night did not include an in-hand agreement for battlefield preservation, the PC was careful to ensure that our vote was made on the application of record only. The vote (5-2 for approval) was based on the merits of the case as presented, with the understanding that a confirmed agreement for preservation could make the argument for rezoning even stronger. Discussions among the affected parties have continued since the PC meeting, but I have not been updated personally since that time and my knowledge of the status of any agreements or the lack of same is incomplete. I do not know if BOS Chairman Robert Hagan is yet able to speak publicly on the issues, but his understanding should be more current.
Sincerely,
Hugh Montgomery
I interpret the response as saying that the deal details beteeen Tricord and CWPT and the County do not go as far as specifying a land sale versus an easement sale.
Please stay tuned - more on this is on its way.
