Harper's Ferry Developer

[Robert A Mosher]

Does anyone know why the CWPT mailer did not name the developer responsible for the trench dug across the park land?

I did a quick Google search and came up with the name mentioned in a couple of news stories as well as in documents relating to this and other development projects.

Frankly, it seems to me that if you want to persuade a corporation to do or not do something then you have to hit them where it hurts - money. Doing bad things has to cost them money - either in court fees, publicity efforts to explain why they were doing bad things, stockholders and investors pulling out their investments, other corporations not wanting to do business with them because they don't want to be tarred by the same brush, or by politicians (at every level) not helping them get government contracts because of the bad publicity getting potential voters upset, and so on. So why not name these guys outright?

Robert A. Mosher

[tompritchett]

Frankly, it seems to me that if you want to persuade a corporation to do or not do something then you have to hit them where it hurts - money. Doing bad things has to cost them money - either in court fees, publicity efforts to explain why they were doing bad things, stockholders and investors pulling out their investments, other corporations not wanting to do business with them because they don't want to be tarred by the same brush, or by politicians (at every level) not helping them get government contracts because of the bad publicity getting potential voters upset, and so on. So why not name these guys outright?


I think that you have answered your own question. If, by naming them directly, CWPT does so for the intent of inflicting financial harm by discrediting their name (as if their action had not already done so), it could open CWPT to legal threats and harassments that could divert funds from battlefield preservation to legal self-preservation. As has been discussed in several threads lately, just because you are right does not necessarily protect one from getting sued and incurring potentially substantial legal expenses, especially if your opponent has significant capital to invest in legal intimidation tactics.

[Robert A Mosher]

Tom -
Thanks for that, it does tend to reinforce my own conclusions (which was why I decided not to use the name in my own posting in order to be sure that this forum did not find itself in trouble). After 30 years with the Federal Government dealing with government lawyers, I wouldn't wish such encounters on anyone - especially the law-abiding souls who seem less likely to have three attorneys conveniently on hand on a Saturday morning!

BTW - for those who are interested in informing themselves, as I noted, you can find out more on the incident via the internet, but as Tom points out, be careful how you handle the information and what you do with it.

Robert A. Mosher

[Frenchie]

I haven't read Henry VI in many years, but I didn't have to strain my brain to know this one: "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." Emphatic agreement.