[MassHistPres] ACHP Comments on the Cape Wind Project

Mon Apr 5 12:10:30 EDT 2010

Bravo, Jonathan.
It isn't just the right that abuses power and adds to the aggregate level of cultural unpleasantness. As a very, very longstanding environmentalist and preservationist I have been appalled at how this debate has proceeded.
Jim Hadley

Date: Mon, 5 Apr 2010 11:56:18 -0400
From: TuckerJ at amherstma.gov
To: Bjdurk at aol.com; 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

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/e872dfd5/attachment.htm>