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 federally affiliated 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 National Historic Preservation Act — 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
Because some of our stories can only be effectively told through the interpretation of historic properties, loss of those properties, especially if it occurs before interpretation has been accomplished, means we lose all or major portions of those stories. The preservation of those properties may depend on the proper application of the National Historic Preservation Act. But if the NHPA is defective, even perfect application of the Act as written could lead to unsatisfactory results.
This proposed panel — left unexecuted from the final 2020 NCPH program, and now bereft of some original panelists — is designed to investigate possible modifications to the NHPA so that the Act more fully directs its historic preservation mandate. 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 justify their positions — whether for or against changing the NHPA — through specific historic properties. 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, the role of state historic preservation officers in the approval of Section 106 documentation, or the subjective manner in which historic integrity is assessed. 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, Air Force Declassification Office, [email protected]
All feedback and offers of assistance should be submitted by July 6, 2020. If you have general ideas or feedback to share, please feel free to use the comments feature below.
Hi Michael–I’m glad you’re resubmitting this proposal for 2021! I always like the point-counterpoint format, and this is a great example of a topic that benefits from such a set-up!
I’ve got one expression of interest thus far, from a new potential panelist. Biggest problem is I’ve lost two participants from last year’s line-up (book deals they will have to work on at the time of the conference), and I’m not sure about any of the other three. Anything NCPH can do to get more people to “raise their hands”?
Seems like a great panel! I would recommend trying to get a consulting historian on the panel– I work for Historical Research Associates and several of my architectural historian colleagues would have a lot to contribute from the perspective of consultants. If you need someone for the panel still, feel free to email me at [email protected] and I can get you in touch with folks.
There is a group at Colorado State University that might be interested in participating – the Center for Environmental Management of Military Lands – https://www.cemml.colostate.edu/. In particular, Amanda Wallander might be interested ([email protected]). Also, Adam Thomas at Historitecture (http://www.historitecture.com/index.html) would have some insight on this conversation as well.