Restoration work is nearing completion on the Batsto Mansion, but not without its controversy. The mansion dates to 1784(with later additions by Joseph Wharton), and serves as a focal point of the historic village. Word is the State park Service is planning to vacate its current offices and take over about one third of the mansion as office space. If that isn’t enough, there are reportedly plans to pave a parking lot behind the mansion!
This is part of an email that is circulating
This is not only contrary to state and federal register of historic site guidelines; it will deprive the public the opportunity to experience the oldest part of the mansion. This area, today known as the caretakers’ or servants’ wing, is critical to the historic interpretation of the early settlers of Batsto and to the later servant class, a group primarily composed of hard working immigrants who provided the ancestral foundation for many of us who enjoy the privileges of life in this state and country today.
The State Park Service also intends to construct a parking lot adjacent to the mansion. This move is beyond comprehension and demonstrates a complete disregard of historic stewardship. The proposed parking lot is planned to eliminate the need for staff to walk several hundred feet from the large and underutilized parking lot already in place at the visitor’s center!
Here’s a TV news report from
If you’re in New Jersey, or even if you’re not, you can go here http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/ look up state legislators and let them know what you think of the plan.
2 responses so far ↓
1 Kathleen // Dec 18, 2008 at 7:32 pm
The “opponents” of the plan have misled the media and the general public on the issue through gross omissions of fact and biased assertions during a preliminary planning stage.
The Caretaker’s wing, used since 1954 as a residence, office and storage space, was never open for public interpretation. Nor was this space the focus of the State’s recent
capital investment of funding.
A complete and honest portrayal of the facts is needed for the reader to make an intelligent decision for him/herself on the issue.
2 Gregory Hubbard // Apr 14, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Dear Kathleen,
By the time I write this, this work may already be complete. However, your angry response did not begin to address the questions raised by the “opponents” and their “misleading” statements. What “gross” omission of facts and ‘biased assertions?” If this was done during a “planning stage,” how has the plan changed so that it does not cause the problems these “opponents” identified? You never say. Hardly a useful response.
For example, you state that the caretaker’s wing has been used as offices, etc., since 1954, thus implying that moving new offices into this area of the house is not a new use. However, you did not address the assertion that this continued adaptation and use of a huge amount of the house for agency offices is “contrary to state and federal register of historic site guidelines.” Certainly your statement “Nor was this space the focus of the State’s recent capital investment of funding” did not excuse, explain or mitigate the state’s plans as presented here. Just because the portion of the structure proposed for office use was not the subject of recent state work does not mean that this use is appropriate, in the best interests of historical interpretation of the site, or even its long-term preservation. Obviously having a staff member living in the house is good for security, but office use is irrelevant on that point.
Furthermore, your grand statement “A complete and honest portrayal of the facts is needed for the reader to make an intelligent decision for him/herself on the issue” is also irrelevant. You did not provide any references to a corrected or updated plan, nor did you provide a source for the “…complete and honest portrayal of the facts…” needed for anyone to “…make an intelligent decision for him/herself on the issue.”
Neither did you list any parts of the plan that would be at odds with the “…gross omissions of fact and biased assertions…” outlined here.
The result is we, the readers, are left wondering about that proposed parking lot adjacent to the house. Parking lots rarely figure in restorations or interpretations of nineteenth century landscapes. “The State Park Service…intends to construct a parking lot adjacent to the mansion. This move is beyond comprehension…demonstrates a complete disregard of historic stewardship. The proposed parking lot is planned to eliminate the need for staff to walk several hundred feet from the large and underutilized parking lot already in place at the visitor’s center!”
Your angry letter may or may not be justified and reasonable, but we’ll never know. Because you did not provide the information any reader requires to “…make an intelligent decision for him / herself on the issue[s],” we are left only with your angry statement. Not nearly good enough to understand your assertions, let alone defend the state’s apparently ill-conceived actions.
Gregory Hubbard, Sanford, Maine
Leave a Comment