[MassHistPres] ACHP Comments on the Cape Wind Project

Mon Apr 5 12:53:27 EDT 2010

This is  very much a Friday topic, but I am unable to let your
digression pass without reply.

For Montana wolves, the de-listing (from the Endangered Species Act) and
the opening of an annual hunt (with a maximum number of animals to be
taken, and not in Yellowstone National Park, where no hunting is
permitted) was based upon years of thorough scientific analysis of the
size and condition of the wolf population and its habitat.  The wolf
population in Yellowstone and elsewhere in Montana can sustain and will
readily rebound from the kinds of losses that controlled hunting will
entail.

Here is a link to a detailed summary of the reasons for wolf mortality
in the Yellowstone area:  http://www.forwolves.org/ralph/deadwolf.htm.
Acknowledging that Nature is red in tooth and claw is difficult, and
certainly doesn't seem to work well in hand-wringing fundraising pleas
from 'animal welfare' organizations-at least not as well as the
dishonest or ignorant use of the term "slaughter."  These are indeed
important discussions to have.

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 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/20100405/0e890d7e/attachment-0001.htm>