[MassHistPres] ACHP Comments on the Cape Wind Project

[Wendy Nicholas]

In fact, the tribes have been raising these issues since the beginning of the review process many years ago, and preservationists, including the National Trust, have called on the lead federal agency to take those and other grave preservation concerns seriously since that time. Our voices fell on deaf ears, for the most part, and Cape Wind has inaccurately but successfully characterized preservation concerns as frivolous and/or late. We strongly support MHC's opinion and NPS's determination of NR eligibility, both of which were based on information from the tribes (the authority on these matters), as well as extensive research. Viewed in light of well-established criteria for Traditional Cultural Properties and NR designation, this was not a stretch. For information on the historic preservation issues related to Cape Wind and the deficiencies of the federal process, you might be interested to read http://blogs.nationaltrust.org/preservationnation/?p=9186.


Wendy Nicholas  | Director, Northeast Office
National Trust for Historic Preservation | 7 Faneuil Hall Marketplace, 4th Floor. Boston, MA 02109
Phone: 617-523-0885 | Fax: 617-523-1199 | Email: wendy_nicholas at nthp.org<mailto:wendy_nicholas at nthp.org>.  www.PreservationNation.org<http://www.preservationnation.org/>


From: masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu [mailto:masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu] On Behalf Of Diane Gilbert
Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 7:41 AM
To: Sam Bird; Bjdurk at aol.com
Cc: Forum-L at lists.nationaltrust.org; Untitled
Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] ACHP Comments on the Cape Wind Project

Sam, I couldn't 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.

It's 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 Sam's comments which legitimately wonders where were the preservationists before now?  Cape Wind has been in the picture for years.  Wasn't 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 "hysterical".

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/20100405/112f7032/attachment-0001.htm>