[MassHistPres] GOV #119

[Russel Feldman]

I want to clarify a misunderstanding that has been brought into this discussion.  GOV #119 is in fact an amendment to the budget, not an outside section.  I realize that this is deeply arcane but we don't want to offer any factual errors which might give others the ability to suggest our positions are inaccurate.  The difference is in the process for approval, and the timing and manner which the proposal is considered.

That said, this proposal is every bit as problematic whether it was submitted as a budget amendment as it would be as an outside section.

AIA Massachusetts (the state chapter of the American Institute of Architects, of which the Boston Society of Architects is one of three local chapters) has submitted a letter to Senate President Murray in opposition.  The text follows:


RE:  Opposition to Senate Budget Amendment GOV 119 - Massachusetts Historic Commission (MHC)

Dear President Murray:

I am writing to you as the Executive Director of the Massachusetts Chapters of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) to express our opposition to Senate budget amendment GOV 119 as proposed by Senators Donnelly and Rodriques.

AIA Massachusetts represents over 5,000 architects, design professionals and allied members statewide. Since its establishment in 1867, this nonprofit professional service organization has been a committed advocate of excellence in the built environment and increased service of the profession to society. 

Thoughtful stewardship of historic neighborhoods and buildings from a variety of historic periods has proven to attract and retain residents and investors in towns and cities throughout Massachusetts. MHC oversight and guidance consistently contributes to local efforts to improve livability by enhancing the quality of architecture and urban design.

In that context our concerns are as follows:
.	As written, this amendment seems to be restricted to State Register properties which are already identified as historic and cultural resources.  Our concern is with the potential loss of these important resources.  Demolition or inappropriate treatment of an historic structure can also have negative impacts on communities and historic districts, with possible damage to nearby property values as well as the heritage tourism industry.
.	This amendment creates a possible incentive for time consuming, energy-wasting demolition of existing structures and unnecessary negative impacts on landfills. 
.	This amendment effectively strips the state's authority over any project affecting our state's designated historic properties.  Currently, the existing statute requires that all parties immediately consult after the MHC makes an "adverse effect" finding, in order to explore prudent and feasible alternatives that would eliminate, minimize or mitigate the adverse effects.  Instead, the amendment triggers review only if the proponent requests consultation with MHC. We do not expect that a consultative review would be sought by project proponents. 
.	The amendment would impose a 90-day limit on consultation, and then only if the proponent requests consultation.  The 90-day limit would have negative impacts on the ability to explore feasible alternatives, conduct feasibility studies, structural analysis and conduct archaeological investigations, as well as curtail the ability to seek comments from consulting and interested parties. 
.	The amendment proposes that the MHC would only be able to make recommendations as a result of the consultation.  The amendment does not require (as is current practice) that a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) be developed, just that the MHC issue recommendations.  The proponent would be allowed to ignore MHC's recommendations and not enter into a signed MOA to make a commitment to stipulations that would eliminate, minimize of mitigate the adverse effects.

By changing or removing these responsibilities from state oversight, this amendment will eviscerate protections for the state's historic legacy.  Our historic resources represent an economic development opportunity, a resource for sustainable physical development, and are part of what draws residents, tourists and businesses to Massachusetts. 

We believe that these proposed changes are very wide-ranging and need careful consideration.  We would be pleased to participate in any discussion that would lead to a review process that balances our historic and cultural resources with the need for sustainable development.  

As a result, we urge that this amendment not pass.



We're tracking this very carefully.  Senate debate on this measure begins tomorrow, and Senate Democrats caucused most of the day today regarding all the amendments.  We believe this issue will be resolved one way or another by Friday, at least on the Senate side.  If you or other stakeholders you know have any way to reach out, NOW IS THE TIME.  If it makes it to conference, others will need to weigh in.

I hope this is helpful.
Russ Feldman


Please note our new address

M. Russel Feldman, AIA, NCARB
TBA Architects, Inc. 
43 Bradford Street Suite 300
Concord MA USA 01742
(781) 893-5828 tel    (617) 429-5033 cell
(781) 893-5834 fax   (781) 609-3010 direct fax to email
www.tbaarchitects.com

TBA is accredited by the Better Business Bureau 
Winner, 2011 US Commerce Association Best of Waltham Award
Winner, 2011 Talk of the Town Award for Excellence In Customer Satisfaction


-----Original Message-----
From: masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu [mailto:masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu] On Behalf Of masshistpres-request at cs.umb.edu
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2012 1:49 PM
To: masshistpres at cs.umb.edu
Subject: MassHistPres Digest, Vol 75, Issue 16

Send MassHistPres mailing list submissions to
	masshistpres at cs.umb.edu

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/listinfo/masshistpres
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	masshistpres-request at cs.umb.edu

You can reach the person managing the list at
	masshistpres-owner at cs.umb.edu

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of MassHistPres digest..."