One of the penalties for the distance of historic preservation from the
public. It continues to be the realm of the politically connected social
elite and they scare off the general public.
the historical society is mostly society and minimally historical......
Anyone interested in maintaining historic preservation in the future must
work now quickly to totally retool the current approach.
One thing that is certain- if you reach the public properly it is an
unstoppable force. Whatever has been done is failing us and needs drastic
total rebuild.....
Just a few thoughts.....
Get rid of the socialites as well as the professionals who simply protect
their pay checks.....
Conrad
-----Original Message-----
From: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 9:42 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: letter of concern re S. 02053, Mass bill threatens archaeological
sites
Good morning,
I am writing to bring your attention to proposed legislation in the
Massachusetts State House, now in committee, that would restrict the
authority of the Massachusetts Historical Commission oversight to only those
sites listed on the State or National Register of Historic Place
(http://www.malegislature.gov/Bills/187/Senate/S02053). ; This legislation,
which is aimed at eliminating the MHC's authority to require mitigation for
a single business property (MediTech; see
http://www.medi-talk.com/tag/massachusetts-historical-commission) (see also
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2011/10/25/sides-differ-over-meditech-derailed-freetown-expansion-plan/AqhPlgYMVK0NGrwXowEfoO/story.html),
would if passed eliminate oversight protection for nearly 140,000 historical
and archaeological sights in Massachusetts that have been inventoried by the
MHC but are not listed on the State or National Registers of Historic
Places. This includes some 12,000 known archaeological sites, and would
also eliminate the protections afforded by MHC oversight of development
involving state or federal funding, licensing, or permitting from
archaeological sites that have not yet been identified.
To date, there has been very little public notice of this bill, so I urge
you to share this email with colleagues and to add your voice in opposition
to this bill. A copy of a letter of concern submitted by the Council for
Northeast Historical Archaeology is copied below.
Sincerely,
Karen Metheny
Chair, Council for Northeast Historical Archaeology (www.cneha.org)
-----------
The Council for Northeast Historical Archaeology
November 7, 2011
Senator KennethJ. Donnelly
RepresentativePeter V. Kocot
Chairmen, JointCommittee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight
Dear SenatorDonnelly and Representative Kocot,
On behalf of theExecutive Board of the Council for Northeast Historical
Archaeology and all ofour members, I wish to express our deep concern with
proposed legislation thatwould remove critical protection from
archaeological and historical sites inthe Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Specifically, the proposed bill, S. 02053, will eliminate key protections
for archaeological andhistorical resources in the Commonwealth that are not
on the State Register ofHistoric Places. The proposednarrowing of state
regulations and the elimination or restriction of stateoversight for
construction or renovation projects that involve state or federalfunding,
permitting, or direct involvement of a state or federal agencyimperils the
Commonwealth’s historical and archaeological sites andresources. Further,
this proposalundermines the legislated function of the Massachusetts
Historical Commissionas the permitting and oversight authority for mandated
archaeological surveywithin the Commonwealth and as steward and manager of
irreplaceable culturalresources. Finally, the loss ofprotection for
archaeological and historical resources in the Commonwealth willhave an
adverse economic impact in Massachusetts through its effects on theheritage
tourism industry.
Theproposed bill, S. 02053, would limit mandated state development review
andoversight to only those archaeological and historical sites listed on the
StateRegister of Historic Places and will consequently undermine the
authority andeffectiveness of all previous reviews and recommendations for
mitigation issuedby the MHC for historical and archaeological sites that
have been evaluated andinventoried through the review process but are not on
the State Register. Passage of S. 02053 will disproportionatelyaffect
archaeological sites in the Commonwealth for a number of reasons. First,
few archaeological sites arenominated for the State Register. There is
little incentive for property owners to file for Registerstatus. Existing
tax creditsbenefit owners who are seeking to restore or rehabilitate extant
structures,not owners of sites with below-ground archaeological resources.
The number of archaeological andhistorical sites on the State Register of
Historic Places (60,000 sites; see
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/mhc/mhcstreg/streg.htm)represents barely one
third of all sites in the MHC’s inventory (200,000archaeological and
historical sites combined; see Massachusetts State HistoricPreservation Plan
2011-2015 [2011]; http://www.sec.state.ma.us/mhc/). Under the current
proposal, anestimated 140,000 sites (historic buildings, structures,
cemeteries, andarchaeological sites) will lose protections afforded to them
through stateoversight and review because they are listed in the MHC’s
inventory of sitesbut are not on the State Register of Historic Places.
Crucially, some 8000 Native American archaeological sitesand 4600
historical-period archaeological sites in Massachusetts willeffectively be
removed from the oversight of the MHC if this bill ispassed. Of equal
concern, S. 02053will undercut the review process through which potential
dangers to
as yetundiscovered archaeological sites are mitigated. If passed, this
legislation will undermine the MHC’sauthority and the Commonwealth’s
mandated responsibility to protect culturalresources; further, it will place
responsibility for site protection ormitigation in the hands of owners and
builders, and it will leave residents ofthe Commonwealth in the unfortunate
position of relying upon the goodintentions of owners and developers for the
protection of irreplaceablecultural resources and heritage sites that belong
collectively to all of theCommonwealth’s residents.
The proposedlegislation has negative, broad-reaching impact for many of the
Commonwealth’scitizens, and we ask that you consider the following:
•S. 02053 will disproportionately affect Native American sites because so
feware identified or preserved. Itrequires applied technical effort to
locate prehistoric archaeological sitesand list them the State and National
Registers;
•S. 02053 will have a devastating effect on archaeological sites that are
notlisted at the state and national levels because there is not yet
enoughinformation about them to do so;
•S. 02053 reduces the power of local historical societies and towns that
havelisted sites as locally important but have not yet completed the
applicationprocess at the state and/or federal levels. Massachusetts prides
itself on the importance of local towngovernment, so it is important that
communities be allowed to recognize,advocate for, and protect locally
significant sites when they deem itnecessary;
•S. 02053 will undermine the intent of existing federal and state
legislationthat makes federal and/or state funding, licensing, or
permitting, or state orfederal agency involvement the trigger for site
review; the National HistoricPreservation Act of 1966 and Massachusetts
General Laws Chapter 9, sections26-27C, are written specifically to include
sites that are not on the State or National registers;
•Given the role of the Commonwealth in reviewing development, issuing
permits,and collecting fees, there is sufficient justification for continued
stateregulatory influence;
•While the State Register of Historic Places is important, it does not list
allof the places of historical importance to the residents of the
Commonwealth.
The proposedchanges in S. 02053 will also have a detrimental impact to the
economy. The Commonwealth’s archaeologicaland historical resources are the
basis for a growing and vital heritage tourismindustry, one that already
generates significant revenues for local and stateeconomies across the
country. Heritage tourism contributes jobs, raises income levels, increases
taxrevenue, and contributes to overall economic wellbeing. In
Massachusetts, spending related toheritage tourism in 2002 was estimated to
be 2.5 billion dollars (EconomicImpacts of Historic Preservation in
Massachusetts,
http://www.sec.state.ma.us/mhc/mhcpdf/Economic_Impacts_2002.pdf). This is
not an insignificantcontribution, especially in light of the current
recession. The Commonwealth’s commitment to theprotection of its resources,
or its failure to do so, will impact the vacationand recreational plans of
residents and out-of-state visitors, as well as thoseof participants in the
many educational, historical, and museum programs thatare built upon access
to and enjoyment of those resources.
The Council forNortheast Historical Archaeology (CNEHA) is a non-profit
educationalorganization with over 400 members in the eastern United States
andCanada. Our membership comprisesprofessional archaeologists, historians,
educators, and cultural resourcespecialists. The sole purpose ofthe Council
is to stimulate and encourage the collection, preservation,advancement, and
dissemination of knowledge gained through the study andpractice of
historical archaeology. The Council specifically encourages fieldwork,
collections research,conservation, education, and public outreach. This
organization was founded in 1966 by professional andavocational
archaeologists and historians who were alarmed by the destructionand loss of
historical and archaeological resources in the Northeast. The Council
evolved out of an awarenessof the need to preserve and protect the
historical archaeological record and toshare that past with others. It
isthat awareness that compels us to now express our deepest concern for
thefuture of archaeological and historical resources in the Commonwealth,
and ourconviction that the protection of these important resources is
jeopardized bythe proposed legislative changes.
We understandthat many in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts are confronted
with difficultiesas a result of a poor economy, while others question the
role of government andthe need for government regulation. Those acting on
behalf of the Commonwealth must be far-sighted enough,however, to see that
the state’s legislated role as steward and protector of all its many
resources must not besacrificed. S. 02053 is a misguidedattempt to
streamline the development review process; the proposal isshort-sighted and
will not only eliminate essential protections for theCommonwealth’s precious
cultural resources but also adversely affect a powerfuleconomic engine in
the form of heritage tourism. Massachusetts residents would be better
served by increasedefficiency and coordination in the development review
process, not bylegislation that effectively abrogates the Commonwealth’s
responsibility toprotect irreplaceable historical, archaeological, and
cultural resources forits citizens. We ask that thecommittee carefully
weigh the effects of this proposed legislation, with fullunderstanding of
the risks to the Commonwealth’s heritage resources and to itsalready fragile
economy. In short,we ask you to bring a thoughtful and responsible approach
to the issue athand. We urge you to vote against S.02053.
Thank you foryour time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Dr. KarenMetheny
Chair, Councilfor Northeast Historical Archaeology
|
