Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 35 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
photo by Steve VanGunda
Natchez resident Tony Burke, watches the Mississippi river from his back yard. The land his house sits on is the former site of Fort Rosalie. The National Park Service wants to buy the land from Burke, but he isn’t selling yet.
Territorial battle: Park Service plan hinges on site
Published Sunday, July 13, 2008
NATCHEZ — Since the early 1700s, one piece of Natchez real estate has been frantically sought after.
The Natchez Indians were already living on the Fort Rosalie site when the French established a trading post there in 1714.
In 1726 the French developed the post into Fort Rosalie.
Photo by Steve VanGunda
Natchez resident Tony Burke, watches the Mississippi river from his back yard. The land his house sits on is the former site of Fort Rosalie. The National Park Service wants to buy the land from Burke, but he isn’t selling yet.
The French, in the 1726 massacre, lost the fort and regained it three years later.
After that the British and Spanish have each had control over the land.
And now nearly 300 years later, the Americans want the former fort site back from one of their own.
The National Park Service has grand plans for the Fort Rosalie site, however the Park’s plans have hit a bit of a snag.
The site is currently inhabited.
Since 1975 Tony Burke has called the historic site his home.
Burke’s homestead is just off South Canal Street on the bluff with an awe-inspiring view of the river.
The Park Service wants to buy Burke’s land and develop a site to commemorate where the fort once stood.
But Burke is not willing to sell on their terms.
While Burke and the NPS cannot seem to agree on the exact terms of a sale, they all agree on the great historical significance of Burke’s property.
“I have been told 100 percent of the land is on 90 percent of the archeology,” he said.
Superintendent of the Natchez National Historical Park Kathleen Jenkins agrees with Burke.
“(Burke) is on or very near the fort,” Jenkins said of Burke’s land.
But that’s about all Burke and the NPS can agree on.
But the situation seems to have reached a stalemate since Burke is not moving and the Park Service is.
“We’re moving forward with plans for safe access and a meaningful experience,” Jenkins said.
Jenkins said that could include building the park around Burke’s house.
Burke said lately he has felt an increased pressure from the Park Service to sell, while NPS Atlanta-based spokesman William Reynolds said he could not discuss Burke’s case in such specifics, considering the park’s looming deadline his claims might have validity.
In eight years the Park Service will celebrate their 100-year anniversary and the fort site will turn 300.
“We have to be prepared to move forward,” Jenkins said of the project.
Jenkins said once completed the area will be developed into 30-acre park with green space, picnic areas and walking trails.
Those trails would go through what is essentially Burke’s backyard Jenkins said.
While Jenkins acknowledged Burke’s land is critically positioned on the site, it’s actually less than one acre.
With all the planning the Park Service has done Burke insists he has not trying to stall their project or behave greedily.
“I didn’t buy this place to sell it,” he said. “This is my home.”
Reynolds said governmental regulations prevented him from discussing the specifics of Burke’s case.
Burke is not bound by those guidelines.
Burke said his land has been periodically appraised since the area surrounding his house was deemed historically significant by the Park Service in 1988.
He has never taken their offers.
Burke said the most recent appraisal of his land, about two months ago, offered him approximately $180,000 plus approximately $25,000 to $30,000 for moving expenses.
“I don’t think that’s right,” he said.
Burke said he feels past appraisals have not adequately accounted for things like the view and archeology on the land.
However Reynolds and the Department of Justice’s Uniform Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions appraisal guide both say location and physical characteristic are factored into the appraisal value.
Burke said he feels a fairer sale would include $180,000 for his land and $180,000 for his home, office and garage, plus moving expenses.
Burke said if that offer were presented to him he could vacate the land in six months.
In 2005 a nearby landowner received over $1 million for his land in a settlement with the National Park Service.
Burke said the comparable square foot value of the land for his fellow former property owner is double what he has been offered.
But Reynolds said the two deals are not comparable.
Reynolds said when the NPS attempted to buy that owner’s land he refused and the Park Service began eminent domain proceedings to acquire the land.
The matter ultimately went to federal court where the jury sided with the landowner.
“That was a jury decision,” Reynolds said of the monetary reward.
And that jury-based monetary reward seems unlikely for Burke since the NPS no longer uses eminent domain as it’s primary acquisition means.
“We prefer to acquire the land from willing sellers,” he said.
While Reynolds said the NPS has a preferred method of acquiring land, they are well acquainted with those who refuse to sell.
The Park Service is so acquainted with those who won’t sell they have term for them — in-holdings.
Reynolds said the nation’s parks are filled with private landowners that refused to sell.
On a map in Jenkins’ office, Burke’s land is shown as a blue box with red, representing already purchased land surrounding it, and for the foreseeable future that’s how it will stay.
“I want to be justly compensated,” he said. “And my idea and their idea is just two different things.”
Comments
Posted by seeemeeego (anonymous) on July 12, 2008 at 11:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hang in there, T !
Posted by NtzMom55 (anonymous) on July 13, 2008 at 12:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. Burke, you have "a view to kill for". If I lived where you do, enjoying that awsome view and knew I was not in desparate need of the money, I would NEVER want to sell out....no matter what the price is. That is your home and no one should try to take that away from you. One day you will no longer be on this planet, but for now, you are still here and this is the only life you will have. I hope you stick to your values and enjoy your awsome home's view. Good luck to you.
Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on July 13, 2008 at 12:28 a.m. (Suggest removal)
That certainly is a spectacular view. I don't blame him, I wouldn't sell either. If that were my property, I would not consider selling for less than $1 million. What they are offering him is chicken feed (for that view). His property is worth way more.
Posted by grrbrts (anonymous) on July 13, 2008 at 1:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. Burke, contract an archaeologist to commence excavation, then see what happens. If there are valuable relics found, then sell them. That should fetch much more that the NPS is offering. Just something to consider (idea).
Posted by james (anonymous) on July 13, 2008 at 1:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
TONY KEEP THE PLACE AND THE SHOES ! DON'T GIVE UP YOU COULD ALWAYS OPEN A SMALL CAFE WITH THAT VIEW!
Posted by niderbip (anonymous) on July 13, 2008 at 7:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)
they have yet to offer a FMV for the land (they have yet to offer a price where he becomes a "willing" seller).
Posted by bayou (anonymous) on July 13, 2008 at 7:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Did any one notice what is sitting in the middle of the table and empty? Looks like Mr.Burke is a happy man,lol
Posted by justthefactsman (anonymous) on July 13, 2008 at 8:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr Burke. Don't sell!!! I have detailed maps of the old fort. I wish I was the one that owned that site. BELIEVE ME there are valuable relics on that site. That is for sure.
Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on July 13, 2008 at 8:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Come on NPS - offer the man what is fair! You can't have everything given to you in Natchez.
Posted by fire39212 (anonymous) on July 13, 2008 at 9:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Mr. Burke you stick to your guns!!!! Why should he just give his home away?
Who do they think they are...
So what if they build around his home. I hope if they do they plant 2 trees.......
Open you a little gift shop up below there prices lol...
Posted by rburke1 (anonymous) on July 13, 2008 at 10:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hang in there, brother. Amazing how NPS contradicts their own "NO" eminent domain policy. They used it on your neighbor.... I'm working in Iowa right now. There is this Lewis and Clark monument at Council Bluffs. The panoramic view over the Missouri River is almost as good as yours. However, the actual counsil site was held 2 miles away. Hmmm.. I wonder why they didn't put the monument on the actual site?
Posted by destiny (anonymous) on July 13, 2008 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The man did say if he got the right price he would be out in six months. Does this sound like a life long commintment to the home spot? Think about it.
Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on July 13, 2008 at 10:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree fire...The Trails Gift Shop & Cafe, offering coffee and breakfast for early morning walkers, soup and sandwiches for lunch, and your choice of bottled water, tea, or gatoraid, along with a place to sit and rest while viewing the river before going on with your walk.
Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on July 13, 2008 at 10:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I know the article says his home is located off of Canal, but I can't place exactly where it is located. I've never noticed it before. Is it near where Rosalie sits now? I always thought that was the original site for Rosalie. Was Rosalie moved?
Posted by lambchop (anonymous) on July 13, 2008 at 11:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The amount offered, to me, is not a question of selling or not selling. This is Mr. Burke's home -- understand that-- HOME! I think it would be fair if Mr. Burke loves where he is and does not want to sell, then maybe place a caveat to his deed that when he goes to his eternal reward the home would then be sold by his heirs to the park service. I believe in what the park service is about but to take a person's home is not equitable. I live where homes were taken for the Natchez Trace and now the property is mowed sporadically and is not in keeping with the neatness the previous home owners kept their property. The city/park service should do better.
I am not in favor of eminent domain and hope this goes before a jury trial if it comes to that. I know the jury will be in favor of Mr. Burke because of all the bad publicity given to eminent domain cases in the past.
Keep the faith Mr. Burke -- this is your property and don't sell.
Posted by johnwentworth (anonymous) on July 13, 2008 at 12:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I am quite sure that the park service has done many appraisals of the land. Some people automatically increase the price of what they are selling when it comes to the federal government. I doubt that all of the houses lining the bluff down below where the pecan factory was are "million dollar" homes. They are mostly Victorian homes with the same view.
Posted by concerned24 (anonymous) on July 13, 2008 at 12:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
all of you that constantly say we need more to do are now against getting more to do. It would bring more people into town. I'm sure if they were going to build a smoother road or a recreation area through there that you all would tell mr. Burke to start packing.
Posted by cindygreen (anonymous) on July 13, 2008 at 1:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Every now and then I come across a sentence or paragraph in a Natchez Democrat article that is so confused and confusing that I literally gasp, do a double take, and wonder how that ever got printed.
As a retired English teacher, I used to encourage my students to read the newspaper (not the Natchez Democrat, but the local paper where I taught), not only for information, but as a model for how to right concise essays. Unfortunately, I could never recommend the Democrat for the latter reason.
I understand that writers are not perfect, they have deadlines, everyone makes mistakes, etc., etc. However, it does seem newspaper writers should be held to a higher standard, especially since: (1) they can use the “grammar check” function on their computers, and (2) they have an editor. (Oh, and (3) that’s their job.)
The passage in question is the one sentence that makes up all of Paragraph 21. In fact, every paragraph up to that is comprised of only one sentence--this is more of a list than an article. Anyway, the sentence reads: “Burke said lately he has felt an increased pressure to sell, while NPS Atlanta-based spokesman William Reynolds said he could not discuss Burke‘s case in such specifics, considering the park’s looming deadline his claims might have validity.” Huh? I can figure out what the writer probably meant to say (after the string of words that follow the comma), but as a reader, that’s not my job. It’s the writer’s job to use grammatically correct English. If this piece were written by a student of mine, I would put a big red mark through the words that follow that comma.
Believe it or not, some young people read their local newspapers and believe (erroneously in this case) that they are reading articles that use correct English. And why shouldn’t they?
Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on July 13, 2008 at 1:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hi Cindygreen - sorry I couldn't resist:
As a retired English teacher, I used to encourage my students to read the newspaper (not the Natchez Democrat, but the local paper where I taught), not only for information, but as a model for how to right concise essays. Unfortunately, I could never recommend the Democrat for the latter reason.
write - right?
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on July 13, 2008 at 1:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeah I hate it when those concise essays fall down and we have to right them.
Posted by fire39212 (anonymous) on July 13, 2008 at 3:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
lol y'all are crazy freedom and yeahuhuh.....
Posted by sayitloud (anonymous) on July 13, 2008 at 4:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Stand your ground Mr Burke!
It is after all, YOUR ground.
Posted by sayitloud (anonymous) on July 13, 2008 at 4:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
HAHA! You got her free! TOO funny!
Posted by xfloodman (anonymous) on July 13, 2008 at 5:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with the rest of the folks. "Don't sell". Don't let the NPS bullie you. Stand your ground and tell them to stuff it. Too many people get intimidated by the government.
Posted by anonymouscoward (anonymous) on July 13, 2008 at 8:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Has anyone here ever heard of eminent domain?
I once knew a woman who came to a lawyer friend of mine to complain that the highway was coming to "take her land". She wanted him to do something about it. He started talking about negotiating the price with the highway dept and she said, "no, I mean I'm not selling". Little did she know that she didn't have a choice. Today, we have a 4-lane highway 84 now because of it.
I'd say for Burke to get ready to get out. If he doesn't like the price, he should get another appraisal.
Posted by fire39212 (anonymous) on July 13, 2008 at 9:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Who gives any of them the right to make someone sell and move?
Posted by realdeal1150 (anonymous) on July 13, 2008 at 9:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Tony, Hang in there. There are a lot of memories on that hill especially about old mustangs. I remember coming up there to harass you because I had one too. Man that was a long time ago. Good Luck.
Posted by dixiecrat (anonymous) on July 13, 2008 at 9:25 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yeah, I agree with you A.C. -- it's not "if" (they get the land) but "when" and "how." And as far as the poor English grammar of the Democrat's editorial staff goes ("retired English teachers"), you have to get past that (I did a long-time ago) -- I mean, this is the Democrat we're talking about -- it's a given! But what of the total disregard for and paucity of accurate historical facts -- that was kind of the gist of the whole article -- right (write)? It's unbelievable -- and all they had to do was a quick "Google" search on the Internet; check out the following (from the Wikipedia article entitled "Natchez"):
COLONIAL HISTORY(1716-1783)
In 1716 the French founded Fort Rosalie, in order to protect their trading post established in the Natchez territory in 1714. French settlements and plantations were subsequently established. The French inhabitants of the "Natchez colony" often found themselves in conflict with the Natchez, who were increasingly split into pro-French and pro-English factions. After several smaller wars, the Natchez launched a final war in November 1729 (the "Natchez War"), wiping out the French colony at Natchez. On November 28, 1729, the Natchez Indians killed 138 Frenchmen, 35 French women, and 56 children (the largest death toll by an Indian attack in Mississippi's history). Counterattacks by the French and their Indian allies over the next two years resulted in most of the Natchez Indians being killed, enslaved, or forced to flee as refugees. Many of the refugees ultimately became part of the Creek and Cherokee nations. Descendants of the Natchez diaspora survive as the Natchez Nation, a treaty tribe and confederate of the federally recognized Muscogee (Creek) Nation with a sovereign traditional government [2]. Subsequently, Fort Rosalie and the surrounding town, which was renamed after the extinguished tribe, spent periods under British and then Spanish colonial rule before finally being ceded to the United States under the terms of the Treaty of Paris (1783). However, the problem with the treaty was that Spain was not a party to it and it was Spanish forces that had taken Natchez from the British. Although the Spanish (like the more famous French) were loosely allied with the American Colonists, it was more an alliance of convenience for them, as an opportunity to advance their interests at the expense of the British. Once the war was over, the Spanish were not particularly inclined to give up that which they had taken by force and so, for a time, possession was, indeed, "nine-tenths of the law" as far as Natchez was concerned. A census of the Natchez district taken after the war in 1784 counted 1,619 people, including 498 African-American slaves.
-- If the Democrat can't get simple historical facts like these right, what does that say about the rest of its reporting?!?
Posted by State96 (anonymous) on July 13, 2008 at 9:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I agree with Mr. Reynolds, the " two deals are not equal" because the NPS seems to be offering 1/2 the price per square foot for the most critical piece of property to the parks "plans".
Posted by NoWireHangers (anonymous) on July 14, 2008 at 8:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I hope that somehow that the NPS and Tony can come to some kind of agreement. What an important historical piece of property. Tony, please sell it when the price is right. It would be a great legacy for you to leave behind.
Posted by Badbob (anonymous) on July 14, 2008 at 8:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Well dixiecrat, do you believe everything you read on the internet? The sad part is most people do. Not so long ago it was a historical fact that Christopher Columbus discovered America, not any more. So is a fact something people believe to be true or something they know to be true.
Posted by Hardcorps (anonymous) on July 14, 2008 at 10:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hang in as long as you can Tony.
Posted by dixiecrat (anonymous) on July 14, 2008 at 12:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No, Bob, I don't -- I was simply making the point that it's a fairly easy thing to verify facts (whether through books or the Internet or first sources, etc.). It's kind of one of those foundational principles of journalism. The difference between facts (things which can be proven and, therefore, are known to be true), as opposed to rumors (things people say and/or believe to be true), is not really what I was talking about at all -- nor the propensity for known "facts" to change in light of additionally discovered "new" information, for that matter. I don't think there is any doubt as to the facts from the article that I cut and pasted from the Internet (which was properly annotated and footnoted, by the way). It was simply the quickest reference tool available for me -- or the Democrat -- to use. I'm sorry you missed my point.
Posted by starla (anonymous) on July 14, 2008 at 7:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Home, shmome, I knew he was holding out for more money!
Posted by Inquirer (anonymous) on July 15, 2008 at 9:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Hang in there Mr. Burke and good luck!
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)