Re: Myrtle Grove court action?
Ellen Paul (epaul@dclink.com)
Mon, 27 Apr 1998 06:58:47 -0700
Dear Howard and Ospreyers,
I'm going to take a stab at answering Howard's question based on what I
read in the Washington Post back in March. That article was no longer
available on the website, but this letter to the editor was, so there is
a source of more info (National Trust for Historic Preservation).
Apparently, Myrtle Grove was owned by someone who wanted to see it
preserved and when he died, his family sold it to Miller, subject to the
preservation restriction. I'm not exactly sure how it became a
state-run wildlife management area. Probably by contract. In other
words, the state doesn't own it, it is privately owned. I'm also not
sure how it became registered with the National Trust for Historic
Preservation. In any event, Miller wants to build homes on a part of
the property. I don't know how many homes or how much of the property.
He wrote to the Trust for permission. For some reason, they gave it,
then retracted it (see the letter below). That is what is now in court.
Sorry I can't be more precise.
Ellen
*****Letter to the Editor from the Washington Post*****
Fighting for Myrtle Grove
Tuesday, April 21, 1998; Page A20
We at the National Trust for Historic Preservation
were surprised to see that our letter discussing the controversy at
Myrtle Grove was not among those printed on April 11 under the headline
"To Preserve a Piece of the 18th Century." Contrary to The Post's March
20 Metro article "In Md., Fighting to Save 'a Way of Life,' " it is
the National Trust, not the family, that is in court defending the
easement and the family's interest in seeing that the Maryland estate is
protected.
In 1994 we mistakenly signed a concept approval letter with Washington
developer Herbert S. Miller, whose family trust now owns the property,
to amend the easement over Myrtle Grove to permit a limited subdivision.
We did so in large part because we incorrectly understood that the
proposal would provide other conservation benefits in return.
Within a very short period of time, we acknowledged our mistake and
withdrew from the proposal. Because we did so, we are in court. While
our preservation partners in Maryland (and the family of the original
owner) have good reason to criticize the 1994 proposal -- long ago
rejected by us -- their interest and ours remain the same: the long-term
protection of this historic property.
The concerns raised by the family that we might give away by settlement
what we did not give away in 1994 is unfounded. The litigation is
proceeding, and we hope that we have the full support of our partners
and the family in seeing that the easement is upheld.
The National Trust's interest in this matter has been, and continues to
be, the preservation of the historic resources of Myrtle Grove.
RICHARD MOE
President
National Trust for Historic Preservation
Washington
hmyouth@erols.com wrote:
>
> Dear Ellen,
>
> I read your interesting trip report and was surprised to learn of potential
> development in or around the site. Can you provide a bit more details? I've
> birded there a number of times over quite a few years and would hate to see
> anything happen to the area.
>
> Thanks, Howard Youth hmyouth@erols.com
--
Ellen Paul Chevy Chase, Maryland Mailto:epaul@dclink.com