[MassHistPres] ACHP Comments on the Cape Wind Project

[Sam Bird]

Putting aside this particular issue for a bit - one of my objections  
to the stance preservationists (and I include myself in that group)  
take is that there seems to be no sense of priority. Not only is it  
impossible to "preserve" every thing that is old, it is not even  
desirable. We cannot turn the entire planet into "grandma's attic".  
There are those for whom the lure of nostalgia is so strong that they  
would prefer to drop everything over 50 years old into a giant jar of  
formaldehyde. I feel that preservation efforts should be made to  
benefit and inform present and future society, not to indulge some  
historical hoarding instinct.  Once preserved or protected, a  
district, place, building or whatever should continue serve to inform  
society and provide historical and cultural reference for the present  
and future. If the place or thing fails to continue to do that, for  
whatever reason, it has lost it's function and therefore is no longer  
a priority for preservation, and preservation is all about priorities  
as we as a society, progressing forward, cannot and should not  
preserve everything.

Back to Nantucket Sound - it was never a preservation priority until  
Cape Wind arrived on the scene and suddenly it is now "precious"  
beyond all imagination. I repeat my question - prior to Cape Wind,  
what efforts were being made to protect/preserve the Sound? None that  
I'm aware of - but I'll listen. There are no identified underwater  
archeological sites, there were no efforts made to limit fishing or  
marine traffic that would threaten whatever historical goodies lie on  
the bottom, if any.  Someone please explain to me what has launched  
Nantucket Sound to the top of society's historical preservation  
priority scale if it wasn't Cape WInd - again, I'm listening.  The  
bottom of Nantucket Sound was not a viable candidate for preservation  
prior to Cape Wind and Cape Wind has not changed that one iota.

As for other districts and structures on the Cape and Vineyard, again  
I see this as quite disingenuous. Cape Wind does not "threaten" any  
of them. None will be destroyed or relocated or altered by Cape Wind.  
We are talking about mere proximity, and five miles distance or more.  
How many historical houses have an unfortunate  utility pole in front  
of them? Or perhaps a siamese sprinkler connection stinking out of  
the front facade?  Should all the streets and roads within five miles  
of an historic house or district be left unpaved? Should jet traffic  
overhead be banned lest an historically inaccurate contrail show up  
in someone's snapshot? (actually jet travel should be banned, but for  
environmental, not historical reasons.... but I digress)  Again,  
preservation needs to work in concert with society's progress so we  
can both move forward and retain a knowledge and appreciation of our  
past. I see nothing in Cape Wind that would detract from the  
historical resources in any significant way that would keep these  
resources from continuing to inform society of the past.

Frankly, I am very weary of the opponents of Cape Wind and their  
cowardly arguments. I would have a lot more respect for someone who  
stood up and actually said "Hey, my house has a view of the Sound. I  
think turbines are hideous and I don't want them and that's the  
beginning and end of my argument."  Instead, we find bird and bat  
lovers who couldn't tell the difference between an Eastern Towhee and  
an Eastern Pipistrelle prior to Cape WInd.  One should present one's  
argument as honestly and compellingly as possible and then  
acknowledge that if that argument doesn't prevail on it's own merits,  
perhaps, just perhaps, that's because it should not prevail in the  
grand scheme of things.  Sometimes winning by whatever means  
available, fair or foul, does not lead to correct outcomes and can be  
corrosive for one's character and integrity as well.

Finally, I think true preservationists will rue the day this stand  
was taken as it will do far more to set back the cause of preserving  
that part of the past that warrants preservation than it does to  
forward the cause. Allowing preservation to be used for other  
objectives will erode the efforts of true preservationists, past  
present and future, to conserve the societal record.

Samuel Bird AIA, LEED AP
Concord, MA







On Apr 3, 2010, at 5:02 PM, Bjdurk at aol.com wrote:

> Thank you, Mr. Bird, for this acknowledgement and for providing  
> your comments.  I offer that many ardent preservationists,  
> including more than 25 Federally recognized Tribes, the SHPO, ACHP,  
> National Trust, National Parks and the Keeper identify Nantucket  
> Sound as a significant traditional, cultural, historic and  
> archaeological property.  Given the political firestorm associated  
> with competing interests, I consider their individual and  
> collective actions to be courageous.
>
> Take heart as Salazar has said, "what happens to Cape Wind, whether  
> it goes up or it goes down, will not be determinative of the future  
> of (offshore) wind energy in the United States."
>
> Thank You,
>
> Barbara Durkin
> Northboro, MA
>
>
>
> In a message dated 4/3/2010 2:27:32 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
> greenbird-architect at comcast.net writes:
> Ms. Durkin,
> I confess, I made a shorthand and sarcastic response as a follow up  
> to my earlier comments on this listserve and on this topic. Perhaps  
> you missed my original comments which are copied below.  Perhaps I  
> was too flip, however I hoped to emphasize the absurdity of this  
> decision, in my humble opinion.
>
> To: Paul Bourdon
> Cc: masshistpres at cs.umb.edu; Forum-L at lists.nationaltrust.org
> Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] Areas of Water on the NR
>
> I have to chime in here. This is an incredibly transparent use of  
> "preservation" by folks who only want to defeat Cape Wind. I am an  
> ardent preservationist - I've served on our local HDC for more  
> years than I care to remember, and some of the decisions I've made  
> have cost me some relationships in town - so be it. I have an 1892  
> farm in an area of Rhode Island I have to sell - but at the cost of  
> a hefty discount on the price, I'm insisting the buyer place a  
> preservation easement on it - I've sold land to conservation groups  
> at deep, deep discounts. In short, I've put my money where my mouth  
> is. I am also deeply concerned about our collective abuse of the  
> environment. Climate Change is a very real threat that, if not  
> dealt with swiftly and decisively, will certainly eclipse  
> preservation concerns.  The notion of Nantucket Sound suddenly  
> becoming a precious  historic resource coincident with the Cape  
> Wind proposal is hog wash! Where were the Wampanoags and the  
> "preservationists" on the issue of their precious sound 20 years ago?
>
> Someone please tell me - is there any other 560 square mile area of  
> marine bottom (or even dry land) currently on the NR on its own  
> historic merits?  I didn't study the rulings but I did scan enough  
> to get the flavor - Nantucket Sound was (when it was dry) probably  
> the type of area the Native Americans might have hung out in. No  
> one knows if they did - or if they didn't - it's just possible,  
> maybe even likely. Does this seem a little thin to anyone else?  
> Then let's ask - what would Nantucket Sound be preserved for? Will  
> the public ever experience any of the history made there? Will it  
> become a diving Mecca? If so, why isn't it one already? In short,  
> what public good would come of listing it? I don't see one.
>
> The ridiculous bending and twisting of "historic preservation" into  
> a useful club to beat up a project unwanted by some for their own  
> self interest does tremendous harm to those who are trying to  
> legitimately practice preservation, which ain't easy.  If this was  
> such a valuable historic resource, there would have been a push to  
> protect it long before Cape Wind appeared on the horizon. If the  
> push now is to preserve it, and it merits preservation on its own  
> qualities, then go all out - start by banning all commercial  
> fishing (the draggers have been ripping the bottom to shreds for  
> decades). For that matter, ban all boat traffic because we could  
> risk an oil spill, or a sinking, or anchors damaging some  
> archaeological resource. Make the ferries go around (and the  
> planes, too - have to protect those birds). Let those pushing for  
> preservation pony up the bucks to pay for a massive underwater  
> research dig.......
>
> I'm all for historic preservation. I'm all for alternative energy.  
> Both are vital - one for our physical survival, one for our  
> cultural survival.  I'm all for a rational discussion and effective  
> compromise to meet both goals but that is clearly not the case here  
> - we simply have a bunch of Nimby's using whatever weapon they can  
> find.
>
> Sam Bird AIA, LEED AP
> Concord
> On Apr 3, 2010, at 11:27 AM, Bjdurk at aol.com wrote:
>
>> We are all entitled to our opinions, Mr. Bird.  I do take  
>> exception, however, to what I consider to be disparaging and  
>> unsupported accusations made against the Tribes, SHPO, ACHP,  
>> National Parks and the Keeper, with whom you disagree.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Barbara Durkin
>> Northboro, MA
>
> =

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20100403/fc1ca288/attachment.htm>