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.

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.”