[MassHistPres] MassHistPres Digest, Vol 50, Issue 6

Mon Apr 5 10:09:46 EDT 2010

Sam:

So well said!  

Marc Prufer
guzman|prufer, inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu [mailto:masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu]
On Behalf Of masshistpres-request at cs.umb.edu
Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2010 7:09 PM
To: masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
Subject: MassHistPres Digest, Vol 50, Issue 6

Send MassHistPres mailing list submissions to
	masshistpres at cs.umb.edu

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	masshistpres-request at cs.umb.edu

You can reach the person managing the list at
	masshistpres-owner at cs.umb.edu

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re:
Contents of MassHistPres digest..."

Today's Topics:

   1. Re: ACHP Comments on the Cape Wind Project (Sam Bird)
   2. FW: Follow-up to EPA RRP Meetings (Wilson, Linda)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 19:46:34 -0400
From: Sam Bird <greenbird-architect at comcast.net>
Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] ACHP Comments on the Cape Wind Project
To: Bjdurk at aol.com
Cc: Forum-L at lists.nationaltrust.org, masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
Message-ID: <7CAD4F4A-0510-4A15-A36A-7AEA1E47507C at comcast.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed";
	DelSp="yes"

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/fc1
ca288/attachment-0001.htm>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 16:40:28 -0400
From: "Wilson, Linda" <Linda.Wilson at dcr.nh.gov>
Subject: [MassHistPres] FW: Follow-up to EPA RRP Meetings
To: "MA Mailing List" <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>
Message-ID:

<F0267370256A41438A9CD6C971072824027B5290 at HZNGRANMAIL.granite.nhroot.int>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

This is a response to Ellen Lipsey's posting, but focused on New Hampshire.  I
hope that the attachments will tag along with the message, because I don't have
alternates sources for them yet.

Linda Wilson

-----Original Message-----
From: Wilson, Linda
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 4:33 PM
Subject: FW: Follow-up to EPA RRP Meetings

This is a February 2010 e-mailed message from the NH Childhood Lead Poisoning
Prevention Program (CLPPP) about the new EPA "Renovation, Repair and Painting"
regulations that will go into effect on April 22, 2010.  The NH CLPPP has been
much more proactive about the new regulations and their impact than any other
source of information that I
have been able to find.   If you were at the NH Preservation Alliance
"Old House & Barn Expo" in Manchester on March 20-21, perhaps you had a chance
to visit the CLPPP/Alliance for Healthy Homes booth, or to hear a presentation
about the new EPA rules.

We'll all be learning a lot about the new regulations in the next few months.
Be sure to bookmark the CLPPP web site --
http://www.dhhs.state.nh.us/DHHS/CLPPP/default.htm -- and the EPA lead site at
http://www.epa.gov/lead/.

Linda Ray Wilson, DSHPO
NH Division of Historical Resources
19 Pillsbury Street
Concord NH 03301-3570
T 603-271-6434
F 603-271-3433
linda.wilson at dcr.nh.gov
http://www.nh.gov/nhdhr

The New Hampshire Division of Historical Resources (NHDHR) was established in
1974 as the "State Historic Preservation Office (SHP0).
The historical, archaeological, architectural and cultural resources of New
Hampshire are among its most important environmental assets.
Historic preservation promotes the use, understanding and conservation of such
resources for the education, inspiration, pleasure and enrichment of New
Hampshire's citizens. [RSA 227-C:1-a] --
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XIX/227-C/227-C-1-a.htm.  For more
information, visit us online at http://www.nh.gov/nhdhr or by calling
603-271-3483. The DHR trifold brochure is now online, free of charge, at the
DHR's "About Us" web page. Download it --
http://www.nh.gov/nhdhr/documents/dhr_brochure.pdf --  for distribution
-- or save paper and historic places by sharing the web link widely.

350.org 350.org 350.org 350.org 350.org 350.org 350.org 350.org 350.org 

-----Original Message-----
From: Beverly.Drouin at dhhs.state.nh.us
[mailto:Beverly.Drouin at dhhs.state.nh.us]
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2010 3:07 PM
Subject: Follow-up to EPA RRP Meetings

Good Afternoon:

For those of you who were not able to participate in the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) planning
meetings held last week in Manchester, Franklin, and Newport, I would
like
to provide you with a brief update.  Over 50 stakeholders attended
representing building and health inspectors, property owners, attorneys,
training consultants, abatement contractors, local health departments,
housing authorities, community action programs, builders, state
department
personnel, and several non-profit agencies.  Jane Malone from the
Alliance
for Healthy Homes facilitated the meetings and provided much needed
information on how the rule will impact stakeholders throughout New
Hampshire.

In summary, the federal law will require, by April 22, 2010, that any
contractor breaking a painted surface in a pre-1978 home or
child-occupied
facility register as a "Certified Renovation Firm" with the EPA at a
cost
of $300.00.  In addition, each firm must have a "Certified Renovator" on
staff.  All individuals seeking to become a "Certified Renovator" must
complete an EPA RRP training course.  EPA-certified training providers
can
be conveniently found on the EPA website at:

http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/trainingproviders.htm

Concern was expressed at the meetings at the daunting task of reaching
and
educating the estimated 15,000 New Hampshire firms and individuals
affected
by the RRP Rule.  In the coming weeks and months, the CLPPP will look to
each of you to assist in reaching these firms and individuals through
newspapers, radio, local town governments, building trade organizations,
public health and building inspectors, and more.  Stakeholders agreed
that
it is critical that this education and outreach be pushed from the
bottom
up with each of us doing what we can to reach and educate our friends
and
neighbors as fines for violating the EPA RRP rule can be up to $37,500
per
incident.

Now that the CLPPP has started a two-way dialog with our stakeholders on
the pros and cons of running the RRP program at the State level, the
Alliance for Healthy Homes will be completing a feasibility and cost
analysis study.  We anticipate that this study will be completed on or
around June 2010.

To begin the outreach and education efforts, four documents are attached
to
this email.  The RRP flyer in English & Spanish, a model press release,
and
the Alliance for Healthy Homes' Frequently Asked Questions are for your
use
and for statewide distribution.

Do not hesitate to contact us at 1-800-897-5323 (LEAD) with any
questions,
or requests for additional materials.  Thank you!

(See attached file: RRP Press release.doc)(See attached file: RRP
Program
Fact Sheet.doc)(See attached file: RRP Flyer - spanish.pdf)(See attached
file: RRP Flyer - English.pdf)

Beverly Baer Drouin
Health Promotion Advisor
Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program (CLPPP)
29 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH 03301-6504
603.271.8128 Phone
603.271. 3991 Fax
beverly.drouin at dhhs.state.nh.us

STATEMENT of CONFIDENTIALITY:  This message may contain information that
is
privileged and confidential and is intended for the exclusive use of the
individual(s) to whom it is addressed.  If you receive this message in
error, please contact the sender immediately and delete this electronic
message and any attachments from your system.  Thank you for your
cooperation.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: RRP Press release.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 26624 bytes
Desc: RRP Press release.doc
URL:
<http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20100329/f2a
4d127/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: RRP Program Fact Sheet.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 224256 bytes
Desc: RRP Program Fact Sheet.doc
URL:
<http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20100329/f2a
4d127/attachment-0001.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: RRP Flyer - spanish.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 79375 bytes
Desc: RRP Flyer - spanish.pdf
URL:
<http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20100329/f2a
4d127/attachment.pdf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: RRP Flyer - English.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 77316 bytes
Desc: RRP Flyer - English.pdf
URL:
<http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20100329/f2a
4d127/attachment-0001.pdf>

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
MassHistPres mailing list
MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres

End of MassHistPres Digest, Vol 50, Issue 6
*******************************************