[MassHistPres] ACHP Comments on the Cape Wind Project

Mon Apr 5 12:29:19 EDT 2010

Hello Jim and all,

Its revealing and encouraging to see how many responders identify themselves as preservationists and environmentalists. Is there a difference ? The Commonwealth considers both "natural" and "cultural" environments as parts of the whole.  

Marcia Starkey
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: james hadley 
  To: tuckerj at amherstma.gov ; bjdurk at aol.com ; greenbird-architect at comcast.net 
  Cc: forum-l at lists.nationaltrust.org ; masshistpres at cs.umb.edu 
  Sent: Monday, April 05, 2010 11:10 AM
  Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] ACHP Comments on the Cape Wind Project

  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 

    =

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

  ******************************
  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/20100405/1de3c18e/attachment-0001.htm>