[MassHistPres] ACHP Comments on the Cape Wind Project

[Tucker, Jonathan]

There is nothing in this to take heart about.  Secr. Salazar's comments
notwithstanding, this self-serving pigpile will be determinative of wind
energy projects in New  England, and not just those proposed off-shore.

 

If historic preservation and environmental concerns can be misused in
this way to stop a relatively benign and generally beneficial project,
then such arguments will also be marshaled and used to try to stop
ridgeline wind turbine projects, small local biomass plants, and other
sustainable energy projects.  Such arguments already are being used in
just that way.  An invalid use of a legitimate public interest does not
become valid because those appropriating the public interest as a shield
for their own are doing so sincerely and with (narrowly) virtuous
intent.

 

No doubt there was a kind of courage involved in taking these stances.
But it was the stage-set variety of courage, undertaken in company with
like-minded others, partly in order to reinforce their image of
themselves as brave iconoclasts, mounting the barricades once more to do
nobly backlit battle with the overwhelming forces of darkness and other
forms of progress.  Bravely doing something in the face of resistance
does not ennoble the act if that act is otherwise self-serving,
injurious to the public interest, and generally dumb.

 

I concur wholeheartedly with Mr. Bird's analysis, and with his sarcasm.

 

Jonathan Tucker

Planning Director

Amherst Planning Department

4 Boltwood Avenue, Town Hall

Amherst, MA  01002

(413) 259-3040

tuckerj at amherstma.gov    

 

 

 

 

 

From: masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu
[mailto:masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu] On Behalf Of Bjdurk at aol.com
Sent: Saturday, April 03, 2010 5:03 PM
To: greenbird-architect at comcast.net
Cc: Forum-L at lists.nationaltrust.org; masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] ACHP Comments on the Cape Wind Project

 

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/20100405/ed30dc11/attachment-0001.htm>