Did Heniz buy the PHLF, through corporate donations, or some such?


At 03:51 PM 8/7/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Yesterday (Aug. 6), the Pittsburgh Historic Review Commission held a public
>hearing on the nomination of the Pittsburgh Wool Company as a city
>designated historic site.  After my testimony on behalf of Pittsburgh Wool,
>urging preservation in place (please refer to my website for additional
>background on the Pittsburgh Wool case: http://davidsr01.mindspring.com),
>the general counsel for the Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foundation
>announced that the organization was withdrawing its support for the
>nomination because they did not believe that development of the site for
>heritage tourism purposes was viable and that the most "judicious" mode of
>preservation was to document the structure and transfer some artifacts and
>the archives to the Pittsburgh History Center to enable the City of
>Pittsburgh to condemn the property via eminent domain and transfer it to the
>Heinz Co. for construction of a 75,000 sq. foot warehouse. Newspaper
>coverage from yesterday's hearing may found at this url:Pittsburgh
>Tribune-Review: <http://triblive.com/news/pheinz0807.html> (Headline: Heinz
>'seriously considering' Ohio move). The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette did not load
>its article covering yesterday's hearing.
>
>Now here's the dilemma (among others). Given that there is no local support
>for preserving Pittsburgh Wool and that the only supported mitigation
>involves documentation and demolition, despite my pleas to PHLF to consider
>heritage tourism options, I am in a difficult position.  On the one hand, if
>this is the only way to preserve a modicum of this once very important
>component of Pittsburgh's social and economic fabric, then as a professional
>historian I should support it and let the building be demolished for Heinz.
>On the other hand, however, the business conducted inside the building --
>wool pulling -- will not be conducted if the owners are forced to relocate.
>That means that this craft would disappear from the American landscape since
>Pittsburgh Wool is the last wool pullery in the United States. By
>writing-off the building, and hence the craft, I would be signing on to the
>eradication of not just a demonstrably unique and valuable historic
>resource, but also an intangible folklife resource: the wool pullers
>themselves.  Furthermore, because of the way in which the City of Pittsburgh
>has pursued the acquisition of Pittsburgh Wool on behalf of a private
>corporation (Heinz) under the guise of the eminent domain proceeding being
>in the public interest, it should be the property owners -- Pittsburgh
>Wool -- who decides ultimately what the outcome should be. Not the City of
>Pittsburgh. Not the PHLF. Not Heinz. For the owner's side of the story,
>their op-ed article (Sunday Aug. 8, 1999) is available at the Pittsburgh
>Post-Gazette website:
><http://www.post-gazette.com/forum/19990808edkumer7.asp>
>
>As if that's not all to consider, I suggest that by withdrawing its support
>for a resource it says is clearly historic, the PHLF is facilitating the
>establishment of a dangerous precedent whereby large corporations can
>acquire historic resources by pressuring economically insecure local
>governments. Resources well beyond Pittsburgh's corporate limits may be
>affected by this case because if successful, Pittsburgh officials will be
>able to point to it at as a successful way of thwarting local historic
>preservation efforts.
>
>Thoughts, comments, debate anyone?
>
>David Rotenstein
>________________________________________________
>David S. Rotenstein, Ph.D., RPA
>Consulting Historian
>Columbia, SC 29201
>E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>Website: http://davidsr01.home.mindspring.com
>Phone: (803) 376-1442
>________________________________________________
>