Fear of a Communist raid on his home led Whittaker Chambers to hide microfilms of highly secret State Department documents in a pumpkin on his farm in Bachman's Valley, known as the Clinton Thomas property and along the state road, Chambers said.
“Dayhoff Westminster Soundtrack:” Kevin Dayhoff – “Soundtrack Division of Old Silent Movies” - https://kevindayhoff.blogspot.com/ combined with “Dayhoff Westminster” – Writer, artist, fire and police chaplain. For art, writing and travel see https://kevindayhoffart.blogspot.com/ Authority Caroline Babylon, Treasurer
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Whittaker Chambers - Carroll County On The Map, Democratic Advocate, December 10, 1948
Fear of a Communist raid on his home led Whittaker Chambers to hide microfilms of highly secret State Department documents in a pumpkin on his farm in Bachman's Valley, known as the Clinton Thomas property and along the state road, Chambers said.
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
20070904 Submerging the truth about the fate of the Chambers Farm
Submerging the truth about the fate of the Chambers Farm.
September 4th, 2007
Contrary to what is being circulated; the Union Mills reservoir project in
I just finished reading Submerging History on “Red Maryland” by Mark Newgent - Crossposted: on “The Main Adversary.”
I read – and appreciate both blogs. In my appreciation of both blogs I can only understand that the authors on both blogs want to get it right and understand the importance of making available factual information about any particular subject.
I have also read with great sadness: The House of Chambers [Miller, John J.]
… tried to kill himself, Whittaker Chambers wrote a letter to his . . . spy case, which had driven Chambers to what he called "spiritual . . . land that their son, John Chambers, never has left. "My family will . . .
Posted in National Review / Digital on Friday Aug 10, 2007 at 11:25 AM
I can perhaps understand why Mr. Newgent felt alarmed – and the need to spread that “alarm” about the future of the integrity of such a national treasure as the “Pumpkin Papers”….
In “20070307 A sordid saga of communists, reservoirs, congressman, and pumpkins,” I wrote:
“Folks who have been “had” by the great “seizing” conspiracy are in good company - with ah, count them, 12 members of Congress who wrote to the
[…]
In a response to Congressman Bartlett’s January 3rd, 2007 letter, which he penned in addition to the gang of twelve Congressmen’s January 12, 2007 letter, the Carroll County Board of Commissioners wrote on January 18th, 2007:
“With regard to the Pipe Creek Farm specifically,
The Pipe Creek farm is already protected from future residential development by easement sold to the
The “National Review” article painstakingly attempted to be as factual as possible, it nevertheless unfortunately did a disservice to not only the reader but also to the “National Review.” It seemingly purposefully mislead or at least at a minimum easily allowed the reader to be left with the impression that the site of the “Pumpkin Papers” was in danger – when this impression could not be farther from the truth.
I know
The protection of the site of the Pumpkin Papers and the Chambers Farm has always been of the foremost concern in any discussion. I have known many of the folks behind the proposal and the conservative credentials of one of main promoters of the reservoir (he has since passed away) in the 1970s is beyond reproach.
To be certain, the Union Mills Reservoir is a proposal on a piece of paper and has many regulatory hurdles to cross - - including a survey and assessment of any and all national treasures that may lie within binocular range of the proposed reservoir.
Also, please be aware that the protection of the site of the Pumpkin Papers is important as is the basic health safety and welfare of all Carroll Countians who would benefit from having adequate supplies of drinking water in the future.
These two protections and dynamics are not mutually exclusive.
At this point the only thing “splashing about” in the discussions and deliberations is the misinformation that are being promulgated about the proposed Union Mills Reservoir and any perceived impact on the site of the Pumpkin Papers.
For additional reading please see my other “Soundtrack” posts: Chambers – Whittaker Chambers and the “Pumpkin Papers”
But if you are concerned about the future of the “Pumpkin Patch,” the Chambers Farm and what, if any impact the proposed Union Mills reservoir will have on this irreplaceable national treasure, please read in particuler:
20070323 A reader responds to my post on the Chambers Property and reservoir
And: 20070308 Winchester Report: “A Sordid Saga.”
If anyone has addition thoughts or concerns, please feel free to be in touch.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
20070430 Fire destroys barn on historic Whittaker Chambers farm
Fire destroys barn on historic Whittaker Chambers “Pumpkin Papers” farm
Monday evening, April 30, 2007 approximately 35 fire fighters from Carroll County, Maryland and Adams County, Pennsylvania responded to a fire which destroyed a barn that was over 150 years-old on the Whittaker Chambers’ “Pipe Creek Farm” (the old Thomas Farm) just north of Westminster, Maryland.
April 30th, 2007
References:
My Tentacle column for Wednesday, May 1st, 2007 is on the “The Legacy of Whittaker Chambers:”
On Monday evening, a tragic fire destroyed a circa-1850 barn on the historic Whittaker Chambers "Pumpkin Patch" farm just north or
Interestingly enough, most of those attending the fire were not aware of the significance of the farm, which made history in 1948.
More than 45 years after his death on July 9, 1961, Whittaker Chambers continues to have a profound impact on the conservative movement in the
Mr. Chambers was an accomplished writer and editor, who had been a member of the Communist Party of the
After he defected from the Communist Party and abandoned his role as a Soviet spy, he became a courageous and vocal critic of communism and acquired lasting fame for outing Alger Hiss "as a fellow member of his underground Communist cell in the 1930s," according to Dr. Lee Edwards.
Dr. Edwards, writing for the Heritage Foundation in April 2001, called Mr. Hiss "a golden boy of the liberal establishment."
[…]
The site of the “Pumpkin Papers” has, over the years, come to be considered a national treasure by conservatives as many consider Whittaker Chambers to be a true American patriot of the first order.
[…]
In recent months, the “Union Mills Reservoir” project, first suggested by the City of
Fortunately, I have been led to a clear understanding that the
Read the rest of my Tentacle column here: “The Legacy of Whittaker Chambers.”
Penny Riordan, writing for the Carroll County Times also wrote about the fire:
“Fire causes damage at historic farm” A late afternoon fire burned a barn to the ground and severely damaged a shed at the historic Chambers Farm off
For other posts on Soundtrack about Whittaker Chambers please click: Chambers – Whittaker Chambers and the “Pumpkin Papers”
_____
Monday evening, April 30, 2007 approximately 35 fire fighters from Carroll County, Maryland and Adams County, Pennsylvania responded to a fire which destroyed a barn that was over 150 years-old on the Whittaker Chambers’ “Pipe Creek Farm” (the old Thomas Farm) just north of Westminster, Maryland.
The call for the fire went out at 4:40 pm and the fire was declared under control by 5:45 pm. (I arrived with the canteen crew at 6:15 and took these pictures of the scene after the fire had been gotten under control.
As I wrote in my Tentacle column which came out this morning, “The Legacy of Whittaker Chambers:” Interesting enough, most folks attending the fire were not aware of the history or the significance of the farm, which made history in 1948.
It was Whittaker Chambers (April 1, 1901 – July 9, 1961) who was called to testify on August 3rd, 1948 in front of the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC.) Mr. Chambers had been a member of the Communist Party of the
In several sessions in front of HUAC, he identified Alger Hiss, “a golden boy of the liberal establishment, as a fellow member of his underground Communist cell in the 1930s,” but offered little in the way of corroborating evidence.
Subsequently, Mr. Hiss, who denied he was a communist spy, sued Mr. Chambers for libel on October 8th, 1948. Under pressure to provide materials to support his claims, and in response to a subpoena from HUAC, it was in December 1948 that Mr. Chambers retrieved various materials he had secreted in a hollowed-out pumpkin on his
Although it was not confirmed, the destroyed barn is believed to be adjacent to the December 1948 pumpkin patch. And a nearby building also heavily damaged, is hypothecated to be the “steer building” where Mr. Chambers and HUAC member Richard Nixon, once met to review the pumpkin patch materials.
______
When I turned in my copy for the Tentacle column, I had to cut it for word limit.
Pasted-in here are a few outtakes, juxtaposed in context:
[…]
Over 45 years after his death on July 9, 1961, Whittaker Chambers continues to have a profound impact upon the conservative movement in the
William F. Buckley Jr., who later became steadfast friends with Whittaker Chambers, called him “the most important American defector from Communism.”
Mr. Chambers was an accomplished writer and editor who had been a member of the Communist Party of the
[…]
After he graduated from high school in 1919 he enrolled in Columbia University, where his classmates came to consider him to possess a first rate mind and a gifted writer.
His classmates included the celebrated “Objectivist” poet, Louis Zukofsky; art historian Meyer Schapiro; and author and literary critic, Lionel Trilling, whose 1947 novel about an affluent communist family, “The Middle of the Journey,” is said to have been based on a main character fashioned after Mr. Chambers.
In her 2002 book, “Red Spy Queen: A Biography of Elizabeth Bentley,” historian Kathryn Olmsted referred to Mr. Chambers as being “brilliant, disturbed, idealistic, - and dysfunctional.”
In his first brush with public controversy, he abruptly left
The
It is suggested that Mr. Chambers left
_____
This is the Westminster Fire Department Public Information Officer Report:
At 16:39 (4:39 PM)
Subsequent units responding in addition to those on the initial alarm were from Taneytown,
The fire was placed under control at 17:45 (5:45 PM) and the tanker task force was released at 18:45. Units stayed on the scene until 20:00 (8 PM) for overhaul.
The barn was over 100 years old and was on the farm known as the Whitaker Chambers Farm. Cause and determination of the fire is under investigation by
April 30th, 2007
Saturday, March 24, 2007
20070323 A reader responds to my post on the Chambers Property and reservoir
A reader responds to my post on the Chambers Property and the proposed Union Mills reservoir
March 23, 2007
A reader responds to my Winchester Report post on the Chambers property and the Union Mills reservoir: A sordid saga of communists, reservoirs, congressman, and pumpkins
I have removed the name and address of the person with whom I corresponded as my only interest is seeing that as much accurate information gets out about the matter of protecting this valuable national treasure and not about disagreeing with the gentleman…
For additional reading please see my other “Soundtrack” posts: Chambers – Whittaker Chambers and the “Pumpkin Papers”
From: Kevin E. Dayhoff [mailto:kdayhoff AT carr DOT org]
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 9:52 AM
To: 'Kevin E. Dayhoff'; --------------; ----------------; -------------------
Subject: RE: You are very misinformed! Story 3-8-07 reservior,communist,congressman
Thursday morning, March 22nd, 2007
Dear -----------------,
Good morning. Thank you again for your e-mail and thank you for this opportunity to address your concerns.
With respect to the watershed protection zone around the proposed Union Mills reservoir, apparently what is being considered - - should the commissioners decide in the future to go forward with the project - - is the property owner is to be paid to do what they otherwise want to do anyway. The property owner gets to keep their property and on top of that the county is going to make the property a protected waterfront property to be enjoyed by the property owner in perpetuity.
I have had a chance to re-read my March 8th, 2007 column in the Winchester Report on the Westminster Eagle’s web site and a number of dynamics come quickly to mind.
For the most part, especially at the local level, elected and appointed officials and members of staff are our friends and neighbors who are working tirelessly to do the right thing for as many Carroll Countians as possible.
Causing community decision makers to spend valuable time counteracting misinformation and fending off personal attacks is not helpful. Accusing public officials of “intending” to do something before they have made a decision is the stuff of enduring bewilderment.
What is productive is providing community decision makers with thoughtful feedback – especially from folks who wish the decision makers to go in a different direction.
The column, “A sordid saga of communists, reservoirs, congressman, and pumpkins” was specifically focused on what is, in my view misinformation being disseminated in the greater community about the alleged attempt on the part of the Carroll County Board of Commissioners to “seize” the site of the “pumpkin patch papers.”
It is my view that the “pumpkin patch,” right here in our own backyard in
It is to that end that I wrote the column to respond to persistent misinformation that it was the intent of the commissioners to flood, “seize,” “take” or otherwise desecrate the site.
Although, I certainly do not speak for the commissioners, I have been led to a clear understanding that the commissioners share the view of many that everything possible needs to be done to preserve the “pumpkin papers” site yet nevertheless, take care of the commissioners’ basic “health, safety, and welfare” responsibilities to greater
I would like to call to your attention the three paragraphs in my column in which I quoted the commissioners’ from their January 18th, 2007 letter in response to Congressman Bartlett’s January 3rd, 2007 letter. The critical paragraph being:
“With regard to the Pipe Creek Farm specifically,
As far as properties inside “the minimum acquisition line for the reservoir”; to the best of my knowledge, the exact area of the water protection buffer zone has not yet been determined, just as the pool line is still an estimate based on the 30-year-old plans.
For those of us who are well informed; it has been rather difficult to decode and understand the quickly changing landscape of often conflicting state planning and environmental mandates with respect to maintaining an adequate supply of drinking water for Carroll Countians.
To the best of my understanding, the commissioners were placed in a position of acting quickly to preserve the option, with the state, of exploring the reservoir. In doing so they dusted off work that dates back to the 1970s and brought it to the public’s attention for feedback and discussion.
However, at this stage, no permits have been sought and no engineering or design work has taken place since the 1970s. At present, no decision has been made about the reservoir except to begin a conversation about creating reservoirs in Union Mills and
Once the plans and the old maps were brought to light, it became obvious that the one thing that needed to be changed right away is the idea of a “minimum acquisition line.”
That has been modified to reflect an appropriate change, in my view, in the county’s approach. The map now refers to that area, approximately 2,200 acres, of which the county already owns 1500 acres, as a “water resource protection zone.” It’s not simply different words; it is a different planning concept.
If the county makes a decision to go forward with the Union Mills reservoir, it may be necessary for the county to comply with common sense and state and federal laws requiring the area around the reservoir to be protected.
The information that I currently understand is not consistent with your position, “the county intends on buying (the property in the ‘buffer zone’) and (that property) will not be able to be used by the former owner’s.”
If you are suggesting that the county needs to do everything possible to protect personal property rights, then I cannot agree with you more. From what I understand of the county’s position,
But I find the statement put forth in your e-mail: that the county has placed your “little piece of the American dream” for which you have worked your “whole life to get there and then have it show up on a map marked to be taken away without any explanation…” to be inconsistent with what I believe is to be what the county is considering.
It is my understanding at present that in order for the county to comply with current federal and state mandates with respect to protecting the watershed; it does not necessarily mean the county needs to “buy” the property and or deprive the owner from the ownership, physical possession, and enjoyment of their property.
It is apparently the prevailing convention that purchasing such easements, that would help to protect the water without the landowner giving up his ownership, is for the most part, the best way to proceed.
Yes, state regulations and best management practices would lead the county to apply some restrictions to the land, but only to portions that fall within the easement.
The specific lines delineating the water resource protection zone will be determined when new engineering studies are conducted (assuming the option of reservoirs is something the commissioners choose to pursue). The only outright purchase would be of land that falls in the pool line.
Ironically, most of what I have heard from folks such as yourself, and the county; is that you are on the same page as far as preserving the land in private hands – and for facilitating open space and against future residential development or the construction of magnesium smelting factories on the properties.
The irony is exacerbated by the fact that what the county may propose is to add an additional layer of protection to the farm that once housed the “pumpkin papers,” and perhaps compensate the property owner for that further protection.
In addition, the county wishes to purchase a protection from certain properties in order for the property owner to continue to do what the property owner has already stated they wish to do – preserve the property.
To recap, apparently what is being considered is that certain (as yet undetermined) property owners are to be paid to do what they otherwise want to do anyway. The property owners gets to keep their properties and on top of that the county is going to make the property a waterfront property all the while providing drinking water (and thus protecting the health, safety and welfare) for many Carroll Countians in perpetuity.
Thank you for your time. I hope that this has been helpful. As always, your thoughtful consideration is appreciated regardless of the outcome on any particular issue. Whether we agree or disagree, always find my door open for friendly constructive dialogue.
Kevin Dayhoff
From: Kevin E. Dayhoff [mailto:kdayhoff AT carr DOT org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 10:12 AM
To: --------------; ----------------; -----------------
Subject: RE: You are very misinformed! Story 3-8-07 reservior,communist,congressman
--------------------,
Thanks a bunch for your e-mail. I really appreciate that you have taken the time to be in touch. I’m tied it with family responsibilities for most of the rest of the day. I’ll take a good look at the points you raised in the e-mail and look forward to getting back with you. I’m always interested in another thoughtful point of view.
Thanks again. Have a great day.
Kevin
Kevin Dayhoff writes from
E-mail him at: kdayhoff AT carr DOT org
His columns appear in The Tentacle, www.thetentacle.com;
From: ------------- [mailto:------------------]
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 9:56 AM
To: kdayhoff AT carr DOT org; ----------------; --------------------
Subject: You are very misinformed! Story 3-8-07 reservior,communist,congressman
What would you do if your house and property showed up on a map inside the minimum acquisition line for the reservoir? The county has notified none of these property owners as to any thing different. You say that these areas are buffer zones and won’t be affected by the pole level. That is well and good but this is still property the county intends on buying and will not be able to be used by the former owner’s. The county commissioners could have very easily notified the affected property owners of there intentions. If this would have been done and they don’t need to purchase properties I am very sure there would have been a different result from the community.
You also say the reservoir should have been built back in the 70’s.You might be right on that but they missed there chance. With today’s technology there are numerous alternatives to the reservoir. Controlling the amount of water that is wasted through leakage alone would be a good start. If you would have come to some of the other meetings and listened you would have heard some of these other ideas. Unfortunately for the county government we have some very informed citizens that would be more than willing to share there ideas. You like the county government just want to stick with a idea who’s time has passed.
There is a lot more to say in opposition to what you have wrote in your story! But maybe for someone that hasn’t worked there whole life to get there little piece of the American dream and then have it show up on a map marked to be taken away without any explanation you won’t understand.
I do encourage you to come to some of the Union Mills Water Ass. meetings and listen further to what they have to say.
Friday, March 09, 2007
20070308 Winchester Report: “A Sordid Saga.”
“Union Mills reservoir and the pumpkin patch”
As appeared in my “Winchester Report” blog on the Westminster Eagle web site:
A sordid saga of communists, reservoirs, congressman, and pumpkins
Note: see also, “20070307 A sordid saga of communists, reservoirs, congressman, and pumpkins
By
Contrary to what is being circulated; the Union Mills reservoir project in
Recently the old Whittaker Chambers “pumpkin patch&...[Read full story
_____
A sordid saga of communists, reservoirs, congressman, and pumpkins
03/08/07
By
Contrary to what is being circulated; the Union Mills reservoir project in
Recently the old Whittaker Chambers “pumpkin patch” farm just north of
The Chambers’ Pipe Creek Farm was the scene of the “pumpkin papers” incident in which a former communist spy; Whittaker Chambers, defected to become a champion of the anti-communist cause at the beginnings of the cold war in 1948.
Mr. Chambers hid U.S. State Department documents in hollowed-out pumpkins on his
The “pumpkin papers” named a local Baltimorean and
The national, if not international story of intrigue, spies, and the beginnings of the cold war all took place in
It is now almost 60 years later and intrigue and conspiracy continue to abound.
Since January,
The misinformation seems to continue to grow legs and is about as far from the position of
I attended what appears to be the genesis of the misinformation; the December 14th, 2006 “Public Hearing ~ Carroll County Water & Sewerage Master Plan.”
The public hearing was poorly attended except for a couple of gentleman who politely and eloquently expressed concern for their property which seemed to be involved in the proposed reservoir. Anyone can understand that. However, assurances were made by county officials that they were sensitive to the concerns of the citizens.
Somehow, from there, the alarm was quickly spread that the county was about to begin “seizing” land for the project even though that has not been the practice and policy of past commissioners and there seems to be no indication by the present Carroll County Board of Commissioners to go in that direction.
But, the casual reader and any person seriously interested in this aspect of our national history could read certain news accounts and walk away with the impression that the pumpkin patch will cease to exist as a result of the reservoir project. This is not true.
In the Internet age, where news is 24/seven, there is an epidemic of misinformation getting legs and if it is repeated often enough “it becomes true.”
Folks who have been “had” by the great “seizing” conspiracy are in good company - with ah, count them, 12 members of Congress who wrote to the Carroll County Board of Commissioners on January 12th, 2007.
They wrote, in part;
“We are writing to express our support for continued preservation of an important National Historic Landmark located within
So far – so good. From what I am aware of the attitude of
So what is the problem?
It’s in the next paragraph:
“We understand that the
The letter is signed by Members of Congress, Ros-Lehtine,
Well, it is true that the Commissioners are considering the creation of a Union Mills Reservoir. As has been considered since the mid 1970s when the City of
As I wrote on February 28th, 2007 in my Westminster Eagle column titled, “Recalling when B's Coffee Shoppe was all abuzz:”
In line with expanding the city's water supplies, in the mid-1970s, plans were made for
When the $5 million dollar reservoir was presented to the public, the public rose up in arms saying the city did not need the water and that the project was a waste of ratepayer money.
By September 1976, the project was shelved.
History, of course, has proven that the council was correct in pursuing the project and we would be in a lot different position today if it had been allowed to go forward.
However, fast forwarding to today, the waters of the proposed reservoir will hardly come within a mile of the present day unmarked location of the “pumpkin patch” which now rests in an otherwise nondescript field.
The Carroll County officials who are in a decision making role in this matter are keenly, and personally, interested in preserving the integrity of the site of the “pumpkin papers” – so it is simply baffling as to how this matter got all wound around the axles of misinformation.
Why didn’t the gang of 12 Congressmen contact
Unfortunately another one of the Congressman who has been “had” in this saga was Congressman Roscoe Bartlett who wrote to the Carroll County Board of Commissioners on January 3rd, 2007.
Congressman Bartlett wrote in part:
“It is my hope that the Commissioners of Carroll County will value, even treasure, this very special farm, that you will do all in your power to keep it whole, and protect its integrity for this and future generations to study and know.”
And here lies the really bizarre part of the story. Contrary to what is being circulated, the Union Mills reservoir project will add another layer of historic protection to the site of the “pumpkin papers,” which is already in agricultural preservation -- and preserve the site in perpetuity.
This is a good thing. The county wants a watershed protection easement which will concurrently give the site addition historic protection.
The “lake” area of the Union Mills reservoir will only encompass approximately 325 acres. The balance of the 2,200 acres needed by the County that surround the “lake” are for the purposes of watershed protection. The county commissioners have reported that the county already owns 1500 acres of the needed watershed protection area – to be preserved in perpetuity.
Nevertheless, in situations like the Chambers Pipe Creek Farm, where the county can get a watershed protection easement on the property, rather than purchasing it, this is a good thing.
This watershed protection will add an additional layer of protection for the historic “pumpkin papers” site, which again, is almost a mile from the waterline.
In a response to Congressman Bartlett’s January 3rd, 2007 letter, which he penned in addition to the gang of twelve Congressmen’s January 12, 2007 letter, the Carroll County Board of Commissioners wrote on January 18th, 2007:
“With regard to the Pipe Creek Farm specifically,
The Pipe Creek farm is already protected from future residential development by easement sold to the
On a final note, the Union Mills reservoir was needed and should have been built in the 1970s. The need for water in
To not go forward with the Union Mills reservoir would be an abrogation of one of the basic responsibilities of elected officials to
In their January 18th, 2007 letter, the Carroll County Board of commissioners wrote:
“The need for a surface water supply for communities in northern
Our reservoir concept, with minimal impact to the Pipe Creek Farm, satisfies both of these fundamental principles of government: protecting our past while planning for our future.”
Current Events
Thursday, March 08, 2007
20070307 A sordid saga of communists, reservoirs, congressman, and pumpkins
A sordid saga of communists, reservoirs, congressman, and pumpkins
UPDATE: This post was included in the Maryland Blogger Alliance 2nd Blog Carnival. The 2nd Blog Carnival was hosted by “Pillage Idiot” on March 11, 2007. Click here to find it.
Contrary to what is being circulated, the Union Mills reservoir project in
March 7th, 2007
If you followed the
You remember Mr. Chambers. According to the first of the three intrepid articles, which appeared on the web site at 3 AM, “Reservoir threatens ex-spy Chambers’ farm:”
“he is the “Soviet spy who defected to become a critic of communism, stored U.S. State Department documents in carved-out pumpkins that he gave to then-Rep. Richard Nixon in 1948. The documents incriminated another spy, Alger Hiss.
“Chambers, a former Time magazine managing editor, claimed Hiss was a member of the Communist Party and Soviet spy. Hiss, a Baltimore City College High School and Johns Hopkins University graduate, was later convicted of perjury in connection with the same allegation in 1950.”
So far we are in great shape. The national, if not international story of intrigue, spies, and the beginnings of the cold war all took place in
But it with the next paragraph that the wheels of the story quickly fell off:
“This is a man who single-handedly stood up to state authority and the [county] is now attempting” to take his land, said John Chambers, Whittaker’s son, who now owns the land.
“Commissioners recently voted to send their triennial update of the county’s water and sewerage plan — which calls for a reservoir in Union Mills and possibly on Chambers’ Pipe Creek farm — to the state.”
Juxtapose those two paragraphs with the first paragraph and you have the makings of misinformation that seems to continue to grow legs and is about as far from the position of
The first paragraph reads:
“Carroll County - He railed against government invasion of residents’ private lives, but now the government could seize the farm where espionage secrets he hid once were kept.”
Almost 60 years later and intrigue and conspiracy continue to abound. Sounds like the stuff of a
Only one problem; Carroll County is not trying to take the farm. (See footnote.)
Okay, let’s back it up a bit here. In the interest of objectivity, the article was written by one of my favorite journalists covering
But, the casual reader and the person seriously interested in this aspect of our national history could read this story and walk away with the impression that the pumpkin patch will cease to exist as a result of the reservoir project and this is totally not true.
To make matters worse, the Associated Press picked up the story and gave it legs. By 2:02 PM that afternoon, the AP story ran with the alarming – and totally inaccurate headline, “Farm where Chambers turned over 'pumpkin papers' may be seized.” (Again – see footnote.)
By 3:35 PM the AP had to walk its story back and it posted an article titled, “County wants part of same farm that was home to "pumpkin papers".”
It was a very long day for many folks.
Ay caramba. Where to begin?
As far as I - and many others I talked with on Wednesday, Ms. Volkmann got “had.” It will happen to the best of us and at some time or another it will happen to all of us. Someone peed on her leg and told her that it was raining.
In the internet age, where news is twenty-four seven, there is an epidemic of misinformation getting legs and if it is repeated often enough “it becomes true.”
And she is not the only person to have been “had.”. She’s in good company - with ah, count them, twelve members of Congress who wrote to the Carroll County Board of Commissioners on January 12th, 2007.
They wrote, in part;
“We are writing to express our support for continued preservation of an important National Historic Landmark located within
So far – so good. From what I am aware of the attitude of
So what is the problem?
It’s in the next paragraph:
“We understand that the
The letter is signed by Members of Congress: Ros-Lehtine,
Well, it is true that the Commissioners are considering the creation of a Union Mills Reservoir. As has been considered since the mid 1970s when the City of
As I wrote on February 28th, 2007 in my Westminster Eagle column titled, “Recalling when B's Coffee Shoppe was all abuzz:”
In line with expanding the city's water supplies, in the mid-1970s, plans were made for
When the $5 million dollar reservoir was presented to the public, the public rose up in arms saying the city did not need the water and that the project was a waste of ratepayer money.
By September 1976, the project was shelved.
History, of course, has proven that the council was correct in pursuing the project and we would be in a lot different position today if it had been allowed to go forward.
However, fast forwarding to today, the waters of the proposed reservoir will hardly come within a mile of the present day unmarked location of the “pumpkin patch” which now rests in an otherwise nondescript field.
The
Why didn’t the gang of twelve Congressmen contact
Unfortunately another one of the Congressman who has been “had” in this saga was Congressman Roscoe Bartlett who wrote the Carroll County Board of Commissioners on January 3rd, 2007.
Congressman Bartlett wrote in part:
“It is my hope that the Commissioners of Carroll County will value, even treasure, this very special farm, that you will do all in your power to keep it whole, and protect its integrity for this and future generations to study and know.”
And here lies the really bizarre part of the story. Contrary to what is being circulated, the Union Mills reservoir project will add another layer of historic protection to the site of the “pumpkin papers,” which is already in agricultural preservation - - and preserve the site in perpetuity.
This is a good thing. The county has no interest in "seizing" the property.
Quite the contrary, the county wants a watershed protection easement which will concurrently give the site addition historic protection.
I attended what appears to be the genesis of the misinformation; the December 14th, 2006 “Public Hearing ~ Carroll County Water & Sewerage Master Plan.”
The public hearing was poorly attended except for a couple of gentleman who politely and eloquently expressed concern for their property which seemed to be involved in the proposed reservoir. Anyone can understand that. However assurances were made by county officials that they were sensitive to the concerns of the citizens.
Somehow, from there the alarm was quickly spread that the county was about to begin “seizing” land for the project and that has not been the practice and policy of past commissioners and there seems to be no indication by the present Carroll County Board of Commissioners to go in that direction.
In a December 15th, 2007 Carroll County Times article by Marjorie Censer, she wrote, “The county has long anticipated building a reservoir at the Union Mills site, north of Westminster, said Steve Horn, the county's planning director, and it already owns about two-thirds of the almost 2,200 acres needed... The Union Mills reservoir itself would be about 325 acres, but the additional land around the reservoir would protect the water quality, Horn said.”
The translation is that the acreage above and beyond the 325 acres of “lake” to be created is for the purposes of watershed protection – and this land is to be preserved in perpetuity.
Further translation – the watershed protection will add an additional layer of protection for the historic site, which again, is almost a mile from the waterline.
In a response to Congressman Bartlett’s January 3rd, 2007 letter, which he penned in addition to the gang of twelve Congressmen’s January 12, 2007 letter - - the Carroll County Board of Commissioners wrote on January 18th, 2007:
“With regard to the Pipe Creek Farm specifically,
The Pipe Creek farm is already protected from future residential development by easement sold to the
On a final note, the Union Mills reservoir was needed and should’ve been built in the 1970s. The need for water in
In their January 18th, 2007 letter, the Carroll County Board of commissioners wrote, “The need for a surface water supply for communities in northern
Current Events
[1] Carroll County Board of Commissioners wrote on January 18th, 2007: “…Carroll County has no interest in acquiring Pipe Creek Farm land for the purpose of constructing the reservoir beyond… the ‘normal pool level.’ We estimate this direct impact on the Pipe Creek farm to equal roughly 15.5 acres. The balance of the farm, approximately 346.5 acres, remains undisturbed and under the full control and ownership of its present owner…”