Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Tue, 14 Mar 2006 15:13:07 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
While there are legal handles to force the federal agency client to provide
security (Section 106, NEPA, etc.), you are dealing with agencies who simply
want to build new post office buildings and care zero for archaeology. I saw
this with a federal HUD grant elderly care facility in the City of San
Bernardino. No crusader (agency wishing to carry out their mission to build
something new) will help you charge them big time for an impediment to their
crusade; hence, they have a conflict of interest. You see, this is what is called a
"conflict of interest." The crusader would accuse the archaeologist as having
a conflict of interest and being an obstacle. The Advisory Council and SHPO
are supposed to be the "arms-length reviewer" with no financial ties or
interest other than the resource. Government agencies know their consultant is not
going to sue them for failure to provide security because that would violate
contractor agreements and upset the apple cart for future contracts, so they
simply open the gates and invite the pot/bottle hunters inside. In historic
preservation (architecture) that is called "demolition by neglect" and it
happens all the time. Some of my colleagues clandestinely slip the story to
newspapers or advocacy groups who become their "spear carriers" in fighting to
preserve or force Section 106 or protect archaeology sites. The problem for
contractors like Mike, Mary or myself is that we are in the middle of a pyramid
of decision-makers.
Ron May
Legacy 106, Inc.
|
|
|