[MassHistPres] ACHP Comments on the Cape Wind Project

[Diane Gilbert]

Sam, I couldn¹t agree with you more.

The MHC has suffered from the economic downturn with staffing shortages and
a variety of other resource problems for the past several years.  Many of us
have hoped to see MHC take a stand to preserve, protect and provides
resources to advocate for a variety of historic buildings, landmarks, and
significant pre-contact sites, occupied by the first and early peoples for
millennia, along with a host of other archaeological, both native and
cultural historic sites.

It¹s just not helpful to take Sam Bird to task because his views make other
preservationists uncomfortable.  These are important discussions to have.

I have to echo Sam¹s comments which legitimately wonders where were the
preservationists before now?  Cape Wind has been in the picture for years.
Wasn¹t it only last year when MHC and other preservation groups, the noble
tribes and many others decided to take up this battle, at least through
measures that invoked historic significance? This stance may well detracts
from the important advocacy that ardent preservationists take up on a daily
basis and unwittingly I would presume gives a bit of credence to
³hysterical². 

As for Ken Salazar, some of us have appealed to him to stop the needless
slaughter of the wolf packs at Yellowstone, legitimized by hunting licenses?
Wolves are integral to the bio/eco systems, including the balance of the elk
populations and other species that co-exist in our National Parks. But, I
too digress.

Diane Gilbert
President
Dartmouth Heritage Preservation Trust, Inc.
Southeastern MA


 


On 4/3/10 7:46 PM, "Sam Bird" <greenbird-architect at comcast.net> wrote:

> 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 
>>> 
>>> =
> 
> 
> 
> ******************************
> For administrative questions regarding this list, please contact
> Christopher.Skelly at state.ma.us directly.  PLEASE DO NOT "REPLY" TO THE WHOLE
> LIST.
> MassHistPres mailing list
> MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
> http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres
> ********************************

-- 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20100405/c20d01b2/attachment-0001.htm>