FYI:   Forwarded from The California Council for the Promotion of History 
list ([log in to unmask])

>Revisiting the law that pits roads against historic places
>      Bush administration wants revision to limit power of preservationists
>
>Robert E. Pierre, Washington Post
>      Thursday, December 4, 2003
>      ©2003 San Francisco Chronicle
>
>
>      Harrods Creek , Ky. -- Meme Sweets Runyon's mind and mouth run a 
> mile a minute as she
>motors down River Road, pointing out historic homes,
>      sweeping vistas and rolling landscapes that could be spoiled if a 
> new interstate highway
>project is built.
>
>      "This land is beloved," said Runyon, executive director of River 
> Fields, an Ohio River
>preservation group. "Children can go to the landscape of the
>      corridor and capture what happened 200 years ago."
>
>      But she contends that projects such as the Ohio River Bridges -- a 
> two- bridge proposal
>here and eight miles downriver in Louisville -- threaten that
>      sense of history.
>
>      John Carr, Kentucky's deputy state highway engineer, said the state 
> has gone overboard to
>limit damage to historic sites. At one property, planners
>      have agreed to spend $90 million to burrow a tunnel underneath 
> rather than dig a trench
>for the tunnel and cover it up.
>
>      The more expensive option avoids uprooting the existing plants and 
> trees at Drumanard
>Estate, one of 26 estates built here beginning in the 1870s and
>      featuring the work of nationally renowned architects and landscape 
> designers.
>
>      "We're spending $90 million on a tunnel to avoid a $4 million 
> property," said Carr, a
>30-year transportation planner.
>
>      "We could have done it much cheaper and replaced the landscape just 
> as it is today.
>
>      "We're trying to put a little logic in this," he said.
>
>      The people who build roads and the ones, like Runyon, who have 
> devoted themselves to
>protecting pieces of America's past have battled for decades,
>      as interstates have stretched from coast to coast.
>
>      Road builders have long complained that Congress, in 1966, gave 
> preservationists too
>strong a hand when it mandated that transportation projects
>      avoid significant historic sites, public parks and wildlife refuges 
> unless there is no
>"feasible and prudent" alternative.
>
>      The Bush administration has asked Congress to change what it 
> contends is a well-intended
>law that no longer works.
>
>      Officials point to egregious examples in several parts of the 
> country where millions of
>dollars was spent to move a highway project to avoid a historic
>      building only to have the property sold later to the highest bidder 
> and then demolished.
>
>      The proposed change is part of a new six-year major transportation 
> reauthorization bill
>being debated on Capitol Hill.
>
>      Historic preservation protections would not go away, officials said, 
> because there is a
>current process that allows affected parties to negotiate a
>      settlement. The changes would give the secretary of transportation 
> leeway to decide, for
>instance, whether taking a small piece of a historic property
>      would cause significant harm to the overall site, a departure from 
> existing regulations.
>
>      Now, "there is no flexibility," Federal Highway Administrator Mary 
> Peters said. "The
>current process makes things take longer and doesn't necessarily
>      yield better results. It wastes money. It wastes time. All we're 
> asking for is a
>balance."
>
>      But the National Trust for Historic Preservation, and like-minded 
> groups, are determined
>to preserve what they consider their most effective
>      preservation tool: the transportation law known as Section 4(f). It 
> was the result of
>public outrage at the way highways had ripped through communities
>      with reckless abandon.
>
>      Richard Moe, president of the National Trust, would just as soon not 
> take any chances. He
>credits 4(f) with saving national landmarks such as the
>      French Quarter in New Orleans and Fort McHenry in Baltimore from 
> being obscured by
>unsightly bridges.
>
>      "We're not obstructionists," Moe said. "We've got to have highways, 
> and they have got to
>be built in a reasonable time frame. But we need this law in
>      place because it's always hanging over the process.
>
>      "If it's removed or largely eviscerated, then we fear there is no 
> incentive for them to
>work with us. It's a nuisance to highway builders. To some of them,
>      anybody who disagrees is unreasonable," Moe said.
>
>      The separate transportation proposals working through the House and 
> Senate have yet to
>deal with the most controversial of the proposals by the
>      Federal Highway Administration, which would require a preservation 
> review process but
>would give more discretion to highway administrators to
>      resolve disputes.
>
>      Preservationists chalked up a slight victory recently when the 
> Senate Environment and
>Public Works Committee decided to keep 4(f) in place.
>
>      But the fight is not over, and most likely the issue won't be 
> decided until the full
>House and Senate take up the transportation bill next year.
>
>      "I think it's too soon to say how this thing is going to turn out," 
> said Matthew
>Jeanneret, a vice president at the American Road & Transportation
>      Builders Association, which supports the Bush administration's 
> proposed changes.
>
>      "It's really still early in the game."
>
>      ©2003 San Francisco Chronicle
>
>* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>James C. Williams
>Professor of History
>Vice President - International Committee for the History of Technology
>
>Office:
>   History Department
>   De Anza College
>   Cupertino CA
>   Messages: 408-864-8964
>
>Postal address:
>   790 Raymundo Avenue
>   Los Altos CA  94024-3138  USA
>
>Phone: 650-960-8193
>Cell: 650-575-9825
>Email: <[log in to unmask]>
>Web Site: <http://www.deanza.fhda/faculty/williams>