MICHAEL BINDER, AIR FORCE DECLASSIFICATION OFFICE
Proposal Type
Point-Counterpoint
Seeking
- Seeking Additional Presenters
- Seeking Specific Expertise
- Seeking General Feedback and Interest
Related Topics
- Advocacy
- Material Culture
- Preservation
Abstract
The demolition of historic properties without any mitigation — and the resultant loss of more of our history — continues despite the existence of the National Historic Preservation Act. The loss of these buildings and structures suggests that the NHPA — in particular, Section 106 — may not be completely fulfilling its intended role. This Point-Counterpoint session will present contrasting views on the efficacy of the NHPA, and whether there are ways that the Act and its implementation could be improved.
Description
I seek offers of assistance and participation from two categories of historians familiar with the NHPA: those who are content with the way that the Act is working, and those who are dissatisfied with some of its outcomes and can identify avenues for improvement.
Participants should be able to point to specific historic properties which support their position. Suggestions for improving the NHPA could focus on the selection of consultants who do the research and prepare National Register nominations (e. g., choosing an archaeology firm vs. a historical consultant), the choice of the historic context on which significance is evaluated, and the role of state historic preservation officers in the approval of Section 106 documentation. Of course, other areas of improvement are possible.
The Point-Counterpoint format is not set in stone, and I welcome ideas about alternative formats.
If you have a direct offer of assistance, sensitive criticism, or wish to pass along someone’s contact information confidentially, please get in contact directly: Michael Binder, [email protected]
All feedback and offers of assistance should be submitted by July 1, 2019. If you have general ideas or feedback to share, please feel free to use the comments feature below.
Michael, the point-counterpoint format seems like a good option for this discussion and I don’t see many of those are NCPH! However, I wonder how difficult it will be to have a true point-counterpoint in a room full of historians who likely lean towards less demolition and more improvement of the NHPA. But if you can find them, I think this could be an engaging, if not slightly contentious, session. Who doesn’t love a little contention at a conference, though!? I would suggest exploring past NCPH programs to see who is active in the conference and works in preservation for potential collaborators. Hopefully others with more knowledge will comment with more concrete suggestions!
Thank you for your comment, and for your suggestions for digging up potential participants. I’m hoping there’s someone out there who’s completely happy with the NHPA — I have communicated with a federal historian who thought her agency worked very well with the Act, but I don’t know that she wants to participate on this topic. Thus far I have one volunteer to participate in a potential session, and am hoping for more.
I’m interested in participating. I think the NHPA itself works just fine; I find that it is more an issue of operator error or simply misinformation that makes the 106 process inefficient. I have several examples of how my agency is working to streamline the evaluation process without sacrificing the tenants of the Act in order to decommission nearly 30% of our buildings. We also implement innovative mitigation (e.g. Historic Property Management Plans, developing related archival collections, interpretation of sites, etc.) that supports programs, rather than producing expensive architectural documentation that collects dust on a shelf.
Thank you for volunteering, Rachel. I think that presentation of specific examples will be vital to support the arguments of the panel participants. One problem I see with the NHPA is that operator error and misinformation are readily tolerated, nay, even promoted by the Act. For example, an archaeologist or historic architect is permitted to make a determination of historical significance for a technical, nondescript structure completed 50 years ago without benefit of a famous architect pedigree. And the applicable SHPO, who has no knowledge of the historical background of the structure, is empowered to take or reject the findings of the equally ignorant 106 consultant. But, that’s just my opinion — if we’re accepted, we can work it out before an audience in Atlanta.
Michael,
This is a wonderful topic. In part I agree with Rachel, while I believe the political realities of urban environments make innovative mitigation options increasingly more necessary. Some of those individuals on the advocacy side (National Trust, NCPA) of the paradigm might offer counterpoints. In addition to SHPOs, consult with NPS staff at regional and the Washington offices, since they have a consultation role in the process. Former NPS (and SHPO) staff like Dan Vivian might be good to consult.
I recommend Alan Spears from National Parks Conservation Association. He’s been involved with cultural resources for the organization for nearly 20 years, has advocated for NHPA, as well as monuments and heritage areas. He would bring a unique insight to the discussion
Brian:
Thanks for your suggestions. I did speak with Alan Spears, and we agreed that his focus is in a different direction. But, he said he would try to attend the session if we’re accepted and end up on the program, and he can always contribute from the audience.
I don’t have much constructive to add, but wanted to say that I think this is one of those topics that is continually revisited, but for very good reason–preservation programs seem to require constant negotiation. I think this would be a good use of the point/counterpoint format & and if this makes it on the program, I’d try to attend
I’ve disseminated your topic proposal to my National Register and National Historic Landmark colleagues, including John Sprinkle, who has written extensively about the Act in recent years. He would be an asset to any discussion of the NHPA and the Section 106 process.
Hi Michael. I’m wondering if you have someone from the National Register program participating in your panel. I agree with Cary de la Vega that it would be good to have someone from NPS speaking from the program’s perspective. If you don’t have someone, I can recruit among my colleagues with the NRHP.
Thanks for the suggestion. I’ve recruited John Sprinkle, if he gets permission/funding to attend the meeting.