Problems of Historic Preservation Today

1. Problems of Historic Preservation Today

2. How are we doing? The United States has in place a historic preservation program that is the equal of any in the world. Isolated government programs have been replaced with federal, state, and local partnerships. Though in formula of indentifying historic resources was constructed in the 1960s, no system is stable, it has grown and evolved over time. What is the formula? (identify, preserve, conserve) Significance, integrity, and treatment are moving targets.

3. The new Preservation of the 1960s and 1970s was not really new Preservation built upon then-current ways of doing things and continued to focus on historical events in which the major players were, as someone irreverently put it, dead white guys of European descent. It placed strong emphasis on protecting the physical reality of buildings, structures, objects, and places whose underlying values were associated primarily with Euro-centered, art-oriented, Renaissance traditions. Advocates, both before and immediately following the 1966 act, comprised a rather narrow segment of society. They were white, upper-middle-class individuals. The strategic posture of the preservation movement was then, as it sometimes is now, mostly crisis-oriented and essentially defensive in nature.

4. Redirection of Preservation policy After 1980 there was significant redirection of American preservation to an emerging emphasis on both physical and social community building, and on more inclusive and diverse aspects of history, culture, and heritage. Responds to changes in the U.S. economy, changes in thinking about the environment, energy shortages, demographic change and desegregation, diversity, and the growing impact of the Internet and computer-based technology. Changing views about whose history is important and why, especially about the preservation of racial, ethnic, and folk cultures.

5. Regulatory innovation The 1966 legislation was simply adding building blocks to an existing structure and called it a “National Register of Historic Places.” However, when the drafters of the 1966 act began expanding the content of that register and adding consequences to that content, they were starting almost from scratch. The machinery they envisioned was inclusive and elegant. The concept of a National Register of Historic Places and a relatively mild protective process that did not unduly restrict the owners of historic properties was accepted without much question or fanfare. The processes, agencies, and organizations that have grown from this simple premise have been many and much more complex. Seemingly toothless review and comment processes once thought to be merely pro forma have, over time, become substantive in that, more often than not, they have led to compromise and agreements that do, in fact, afford a degree of protection for the resource. The “no-build” option is rare.

6. Chapter Fifteen, “Where Do We Go From Here” written by Robert Stipe points out there is much to be learned from looking at what went wrong when we did lose, if for no reason other than to avoid having to face the same result twice. The chapter attempts to look in a balanced way at both our strengths and weaknesses as a movement. Can the 20% federal tax credit be used to rehabilitate an owner’s private residence? AnswerNo. The 20% credit is available only to properties rehabilitated for income-producing purposes, including commercial, industrial, agricultural, rental residential or apartment use. The credit cannot be used to rehabilitate your personal residence in which you live. However, if a portion of a personal residence is used for business, such as an office or a rental apartment, in some instances the amount of rehabilitation costs spent on that portion of the residence may be eligible for the credit.

7. Difficulties beyond Our Control- Money Preservation, vis-a-vis new construction, is expensive and almost always requires subsidies in one form or another. The long-hoped for reliable source of income that comes from a permanently funded Historic Preservation Fund (passed in 1976) built on revenues from offshore oil drilling has yet to be fully funded by Congress. A philosophy that uses revenue from one depleted resource to shore up another is both ethically sound and rational. But removing preservation funding from the congressional appropriations process may never happen, since Congress has an understandable reluctance to give up its annual decision-making authority. Historic preservation as a widely popular public goal is not as highly valued public priority as public health and security.

8. The Revolving Door From a funding standpoint, preservation is caught in a frustrating, revolving-door situation. State legislatures and Congress, can usually find higher-priority expenditure items with which to complete their annual or biennial budgets. At the local level, funding for preservation is spotty, tending toward generosity or stinginess, depending on the prevailing political climate and available funds. Existing preservation subsidies in the form of grants, loans, tax concessions, and the like have indeed helped level the playing field. Supporters view these government subsidies as a public good, but our opponents see them as just another kind of pork, no different from any other special interest. Public sector budget analysts, who wield more authority than most people are aware, view them as revenue lost to the government.

9. Politics Historic Preservation, when the programs are seen as government funded, is seen as a liberal cause. To this extent, it will always be anathema to conservative political interests, for which cutting government expenditures, removing impediments to business practice, and reducing government control over private property are fundamentally important goals. Preservation initiatives will thus be won or lost according to the balance of liberal-conservative political authority in national, state, and (less often) local political forums. Bi-partisanship has been in increasingly short supply. Business interests that profit from preservation-related activities will be supporters.

10. Conservative attitudes control Congress The National Historic Preservation Fund has never been fully funded and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the National Trust have seen their appropriations deeply cut or lost altogether in the last decade. “Takings” bills restricting the regulatory authority of state and local governments have been passed in the U.S. House of Representatives and in twenty-two state legislatures. KELOet al.v. CITY OF NEW LONDON et al. (2005) [Public use becomes “public purpose”] Fifth Amendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb, nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process, of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." Religious Freedom Restoration Acts have come close to freeing churches from local land-use and preservation controls. The Historic Homeowners Tax Credit initiative has languished in Congress. Individual landmark and district enrollment in the National Register has remained subject to an owners’ veto since 1980. Federal law prohibited the nomination of American historic landmarks of international significance to the UNESCO World Heritage List without specific congressional authority.

11. Progress/Preservation Many voters and their representatives continue as a matter of personal philosophy to favor growth, development, jobs, and “progress.” In a free market society, where competition and other factors limit the ability of individual businesses to raise prices at will over those of competitors, the main road to increasing profits is to increase the turnover of goods and services--and this, in turn, will favor an increase in the number of customers. “growth is good,” restricting growth “is bad.”

12. The Federal Partnership There are fundamental philosophical divisions between and among the different levels of government within our federal system. Historic Preservation is seen as a federal program. States view reductions in the funding of State Preservation as creating an un-funded mandate. Within almost all state governments, historic preservation offices tend to be weak relative to the politically powerful, giant state agencies that deal with transportation, public works, educational facilities, prisons, the environment, and fiscal policy.

13. Within the Preservation Movement Tendency to resist change. The guidelines for the National Register have not changed since the 1980s. There is tension inherent in partnership arrangements, where decision making among nominally equal partners can be difficult. The formula of preservation is essentially a top-down system. Federal controls limit state flexibility; State governments are unwilling to cede much control to certified local governments (CLG). Difficult to take a long-term view. Example of the potential for growth of Tribal Preservation offices.

14. Administrative Structure The national historic preservation program remains a third- or fourth-tier priority within the U.S. Department of the Interior and the National Park Service, which has been historic preservation’s home base since 1916. Historic preservation is but a part of the larger NPS mandate to manage its lands, maintain scenic resources, and promote recreational opportunities for park visitors. Age gap among personnel. New programs related to regional heritage tourism, rivers and trails, recreation and like activities-all of which are closely related in one way or another to historic preservation-have arisen to compete for internal resources with the more well-established National Register programs. Friction between the regulatory structure of tax certification and the non-profit revolving fund use of those resources for adaptive reused. Proliferation and fragmentation of interests and leadership lead to competition for membership and funding that tends to fragment the movement, and narrows or unnecessarily compartmentalize the horizons of individual preservationists. Presently there are probably more than ten thousand national, state, and local nongovernmental preservation and historical organizations. Overlap between land conservation organizations and historic preservation nonprofits serving preservation and conservation interests through the acquisition of ownership interests, each having some property responsibility of the other, but neither quite fulfilling the purposes of the other organization.

15. Who qualifies as a preservationist? A 1998 NPS determination listed as “unqualified” are planners, cultural anthropologists, ethnologists, folklorists, agricultural economists, cultural geographers, and others from related disciplines essential to preservation endeavors. The earlier listing was more inclusive The SHPO is not required to have any level of knowledge, or credentials. The National Trust has provided new initiatives that government sponsored preservation has not been able to follow. What programs can produce wide agreement of issues? Other possible areas of certification and expertise have been difficult to obtain: Historic Preservation Architect Historic Preservation Engineer Qualified tradespersons. No licensing, or building code requirements