[MassHistPres] Opposition to Senate Budget Amendment GOV 119

[Courtney Whelan]

Earlier this week, Preservation Massachusetts learned from our SHPO's
office about a proposed senate budget amendment, GOV 119, that would
seriously curtail the Massachusetts Historical Commission's review
authority on historic preservation projects in the state



After reviewing the proposed changes, and strategizing with partners and
other colleagues, Preservation Massachusetts submitted the following letter
to Senators Kenneth Donnelly and Michael Rodrigues and copied Senate
President Therese Murray and Secretary of State Galvin, supported by our
Board of Directors.



Preservation Massachusetts and the SHPO's office reached out to our
statewide network through our Preservation Coalition, Board of Directors
and other partners and ask that you also contact via email or letter your
Senators to oppose this serious threat to MHC and historic resources and
preservation efforts in our state.



May 22, 2012



Senator Kenneth Donnelly

Senator Michael Rodrigues

Massachusetts State House

Boston, MA 02133



RE:      Opposition to Senate budget amendment GOV #119 - The Massachusetts
Historical                           Commission



Dear Senators Donnelly & Rodrigues:



On behalf of Preservation Massachusetts, I write to you regarding Senate
budget amendment GOV 119 and its impact on the Massachusetts Historical
Commission (MHC).   Preservation Massachusetts is the statewide non-profit
organization that actively promotes the preservation of historic buildings
and landscapes as a positive force for economic development and the
retention of community character. We work with partner organizations across
the Commonwealth and beyond in our efforts to promote, educate and advance
historic preservation.



The proposed Senate budget amendment GOV #119 would have serious
implications on the ability of MHC to preserve the numerous historic
properties, archaeological and Native American sites that make up the rich
heritage of our Commonwealth.  It is this heritage and the history in our
buildings that attracts many residents and businesses to call our state
home.  The oversight and guidance of the MHC is important to retaining that
history as the state continues to expand and grow into the future.



That guidance and oversight would be compromised by proposed changes in the
Senate budget GOV #119.  As their regulatory statute currently reads, all
parties must consult with MHC after their finding of an "adverse effect" in
order to explore prudent and feasible alternatives that would eliminate,
minimize or mitigate the adverse effects of a project. In the proposed
amendment, such review would be triggered only if the project proponent
requests consultation. We feel that an optional consultation and review
would not be undertaken by the majority of proponents, a situation that
could have dire consequences for many historic resources.



Also, the proposed 90-day limit on the consultation process would severely
curtail the ability of MHC to properly explore feasible alternatives,
conduct feasibility studies, structural analysis and conduct archaeological
investigations. It would also limit the ability to seek comments from
consulting and interested parties, which can prove important a project or
historic resource.



After a consultation, MHC would only be able to issue recommendations under
the proposed amendment. Currently MHC develops a Memorandum of Agreement
which commits the proponent to mitigation. Simply issuing recommendations
would allow proponents to essentially ignore MHC's findings and could
jeopardize numerous historic resources and have far and long ranging
consequences for our state.



Preservation Massachusetts has spent nearly three decades promoting the
positive and economic benefits of historic preservation in our
Commonwealth.  Preservation means jobs, economic development, community
revitalization, tourism and enhanced quality of life, all while retaining
the incredible historic fabric of Massachusetts for future generations.
Every effort should be made to ensure that that historic character remains
intact but can also grow with us into the 21st century and beyond.



As a statewide organization, tasked to represent all 351 cities and towns
in our Commonwealth, we stand in opposition to Senate budget amendment GOV
#119. We are happy to discuss this with you at any time and hope to work
with you to find a reasonable alternative to the proposed language and its
impact on our historic resources in Massachusetts.



Sincerely,

James W. Igoe

President

Preservation Massachusetts





To find contact information for Massachusetts Legislators click
here.<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001q9qL1076bc-fFr1tGGIJ9cTIDlv6kPDr-a4c3z4ZeF_ZxlljJYL5yiS0qhUNzOXmbhTXtHLumIy6O67uOeNe2rCDriERCiMcDdUR6n4moYz0f5RWw-nWEP8VdKWULlGV_biOTek1x8c=>



Also, there is another amendment (OTH18) that would a negative effect on an
historic Olmsted landscape listed on the National and State Registers of
Historic Places.  It proposes the transfer of the currently DCR owned
property to the City of Boston and authorize its transformation into a
parking area. The parcel was conceptualized as part of the Emerald Necklace
in 1883 and built in 1897.



Please contact your Senator's office today!



*Preservation Massachusetts*
Old City Hall
45 School Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
www.preservationmass.org<http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001q9qL1076bc-uBOkDC-S5bwxuJDSc_JyEQWmBnE3ne3QDKYGvYyPQvmmC2bbAzz8qFL04wSp5SAe6hjsEZ-Spse8xGYHQO5xLLo5pP6CTHMyQiJap21_1dw==>


-- 
Courtney M. Whelan
Program Manager
Preservation Massachusetts
Old City Hall
45 School Street
Boston, MA 02108
(617) 723-3383

www.preservationmass.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/mailman/private/masshistpres/attachments/20120523/ca351a17/attachment.htm>