 |
Concerns
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rightly or wrongly, justly or unjustly, any push to secure a National Heritage Area for the Coeur d'Alene Mining District will need to deal with concerns about potential limits on natural resources industries and private property rights expressed by the community. Such concerns arise in part out of the strong spirit of individualism of our community. They also arise from the troubled record of past experience with some federal agencies in the district. Finally, most folks, ourselves included, find it hard to believe that the National Heritage Area offers designated areas funding with no strings attached -- i.e., offers the proverbial "free lunch." Such concerns caused us to conduct a preliminary survey of already existing National Heritage Areas. Our goal was to try to assess whether already operating NHAs had experienced any such restrictions or limitations because of their NHA status. We began the survey with some preliminary interviews, merely to see how people offering information from one or another business or institutional vantage point might respond to our concerns. The starting place for leads to businesses and institutions in current National Heritage Areas was the NHA web page listing current grant-receiving sites. This page provides a U.S. map showing the locations of current NHA sites and a hypertext list of existing sites. Thirty-seven sites in all are listed. Ten of these however were granted NHA status in 2006. We felt that these sites were probably still too new to have experienced natural resources or development limitations and excluded them from our investigation. The remaining 27 sites had start dates spanning from 1984 to 2004. We had to begin our preliminary investigation somewhere, and so we picked the Cane River National Heritage Area in Louisiana, begun in 1994. Every National Heritage Area site has a National Park Service web page showing the location and phone number of its headquarters office. The Cane River NHA's office was in Natchitoches, LA. Because we were interested in collecting information on natural resources businesses in NHAs -- chiefly mining and timber -- we used the World Wide Web to locate such businesses in Natchitoches or its surrounding area. We started with a call to a mining company (company names and names of individuals who responded will not be identified here, but are available from the Pulaski Project). We explained our purpose and ask our question about limitations. Our informant replied that his firm's mining activity was outside the area of the Cane River NHA and had felt no impact from the NHA at all. Next, we called a "land and timber" company. This informant reported that their activities bordered on the NHA and that they had a "generally positive impression of it and...no instances of special limitations because of it." He reported that he knew "folks in timber by the King River" (i.e., presumably closer to, or in, the NHA's area) and that "they have had no reports of problems either." They have regular zoning limitations and controversy, as well as those surrounding new construction, said our respondent, but these are the normal fare and not associated with the NHA program in particular. "The NHA has been a good thing for our area," he said. Next, we called the headquarters office of the NHA itself. There, we spoke with Nancy Morgan, coordinator of the Cane River NHA. She responded that concerns about additional regulation were unnecessary. She said that the NHA program did not have "enough time or money" to try to impose its will on development and, as well, had no regulatory authority. Moreover, she noted that the NHA group worked "where the momentum is." She said that the NHA had been very beneficial for the historic area of Natchitoches and encountered no opposition, "not a single complaint." The only regulatory aspect of their work, she said, was that "Section 106" provisions applied to groups or agencies that received funding from the NHA. ("Section 106" is a federal provision that protects historical or potentially historical buildings and sites.) This condition for receiving historically oriented NHA funding is not surprising. Next, we tried another NHA -- this time, the National Coal Heritage Area in West Virginia. This NHA started in 1996 and it was headquartered in Beckley, WV. Once again, our initial calls produced no reports of additional regulation. A local mining company principal, for example, laughed: "We're market driven, that's all!" It soon began to dawn on us that we needed a better strategy for finding critically inclined informants regarding NHAs. Random calls to mining and timber companies in web directories were too likely to produce informants who had little, if any, knowledge about the existence of the local NHA and its impacts, positive or negative. On the other hand, calls to managers or coordinators of NHAs -- whose phone numbers or emails were available at the web pages for NHAs -- might tend to produce, in effect, promotional and overly positive responses. What we needed, we came to realize, were local parties who would be likely to serve as lightning rods for complaints about NHAs. City desk newspaper editors might be a candidate for that role and so also might be local mayors. We chose mayors. Using the web, we googled "city hall" and "mayor" in each town where each of the 27 older NHAs were located. The table (below) shows the list of mayors, town names, and NHAs we attempted to contact via email -- the blue cells are the mayor's offices from which we received replies.: MAYORS
OF CITIES OR TOWNS ASSOCIATED WITH NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS
In each case, we attempted to email the mayor or chief municipal officer of each town or city where a National Heritage Area was located. Each email was addressed to the mayor's name and the name of the municipality; the name of the National Heritage Area was also supplied in the address block. In one case (the mayor of Detroit) no email address was available at the city hall web site. In two additional cases (Pottstown and Mayfield, both in Pennsylvania) no mayor or chief municipal officer was associated with a town's web information. In toto, then, email or in some cases telephone contact with mayors could be established in 24 of the 27 older NHA sites. There were slight variations in the content of the emails, but a fair example the standard content is as follows: Our community is interested in applying for
National
Heritage Area status from the National Park Service. The Silver
Valley,
of which Wallace is a part, is an historic mining region of the Inland
Northwest.
Some members of our community, however, have expressed concern that National Heritage Area status might harbor some restrictions for our local natural resource industries. Therefore, I’ve been phoning and emailing the mayors of cities and towns in already existing National Heritage Areas in order to see if they have experienced such limitations because of the NHA program. I wonder if you would mind telling me if you know of any problems with the National Heritage Areas program in terms of limiting mining activities, other natural resources activities, or growth in your area? Thank you! Our survey received only five emails in reply. There was no follow-up email to try to increase the response rate. This high nonresponse might of course be interpreted in a number of ways. It might be speculated, however, that if our survey offered a medium for expressing frustrations or problems with the NHAs that were being felt by these mayors and communities, then a low response rate suggests few problems. The replies we did receive merit our attention. Emails arrived from:
What did we hear? First, no respondent expressed a negative evaluation of the NHA program. One respondent, Mr. Biebendorf, was did not think his community had NHA status, and therefore directed our inquiry to an area to the west of Fletcher, NC. Charlotte Cheatham was aware of the local NHA but directed our query to the another party, the executive director of the South Carolina National Heritage Corridor. Neither of these replies suggested, of course, that local mayors have received complaints about proximate NHAs. Mr. Lawler of Waterford, NY, wrote: "We have not experienced any problems at all with maintaining local control of our resources while also enjoying the designation of being a community within a National Heritage Area." Rob Lyons, on behalf of the mayor Bragg of Murfreesboro, TN, wrote: "I am not aware of any problems or restrictions as a result of this designation." Mr. Lyons also included a narrative borrowed from their NHA, which described the features of this historical site and its significance. Finally, there is the reply of Charles Flynn, who emailed on behalf of Mayor Nelson of Yuma, AZ. Mr. Flynn's reply, offered below, seemed to express a modicum of frustration with those claiming that NHAs impeded private property rights or natural resources use. He wrote: Mayor Nelson asked that I respond to your e-mail. I am attaching the official National Park Service website (http://www.cr.nps.gov/heritageareas) Q and As on this matter. Note the response to question 5. In recent years, national private property rights activists have alleged such infringement of property rights, but Congress asked the GAO to look into this issue and GAO did not find one instance of such abuse. The fact is that the success of Heritage Areas is based on cooperation, not compulsion. Heritage Areas, especially in the West, go out of their way to ensure that all projects and programs are voluntary. In order to make sure that local folks do not become filled with fear based on the allegations, it is important to engage local business and landowner organizations at the very earliest stages of discussion to alleviate their concerns and to involve them in the process. Often, Heritage Areas can help promote local industry as part of their mission. If you are interested in Yuma, check out our website at yumaheritage.com. Mr. Flynn's reply also appended, as if by way of emphasis, the text of the National Park Service web page he had recommended: A "national heritage area" is a place designated
by
the United States Congress where natural, cultural, historic and
recreational
resources combine to form a cohesive, nationally-distinctive landscape
arising
from patterns of human activity shaped by geography. These areas tell
nationally
important stories about our nation and are representative of the
national experience through both the physical features that remain and
the traditions
that have evolved within in them.
1) How is it different from a national park? A National Heritage Area is not a unit of the National Park Service, nor is any land owned or managed by the National Park Service. Instead, a National Heritage Area is a locally-managed designation that focuses heritage-centered interpretation, conservation and development projects over a complex matrix of public and private land. National Heritage Area initiatives are coordinated by a local entity in partnership with varied stakeholders that work collaboratively on projects that meet the area's stated management plan goals. In addition, while a National Heritage Area designation is permanent, the NPS relationship with and commitments to a NHA vary over time. 2) How do communities benefit from the National Heritage Area designation? The designation has both tangible and intangible benefits. Heritage conservation efforts are grounded in a community's pride in its history and traditions, and in residents' interest and involvement in retaining and interpreting the landscape for future generations. Preserving the integrity of the cultural landscape and local stories means that future generations will be able to understand their relationship to the land. Heritage areas provide educational and inspirational opportunities which encourage residents and visitors to stay in a place, but they also offer a collaborative approach to conservation that does not compromise traditional local control over and use of the landscape. In addition to enhancing local pride and retaining residents, designation comes with limited technical and financial assistance from the National Park Service. NPS primarily provides planning and interpretation assistance and expertise, but also connects regions with other Federal agencies. Federal financial assistance provides valuable "seed" money that covers basic expenses such as staffing, and leverages other money from state, local and private sources. The region also benefits from national recognition due to its association with the National Park Service through the use of the NPS arrowhead symbol as a branding strategy. 3) Why utilize the heritage areas strategy? Nature, ecology, and topography shape the culture of a community, which in turn determines how land will be used and consequently what values it will provide to society. This human imprint on the land creates what is called a "cultural landscape," a setting comprised of natural, cultural, social, and economic components that reflect a complex and continuous interrelationship between people and the land. Many of our nation's unique cultural landscapes now face irrevocable alteration through development or neglect. The heritage area concept offers an innovative method for citizens, in partnership with local, state, and Federal government, and nonprofit and private sector interests, to shape the long-term future of their environment. Heritage areas work across jurisdictional and demographic boundaries by identifying multiple cultural landscapes that are linked thematically, historically, or geographically. Constituents utilize shared concerns about these landscapes to collaboratively shape a plan and implementation strategy that focuses on maintaining the distinct qualities that integrate the region and make it special. Becoming a heritage area does not require prior state or Federal designation or approval. Five states (Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Utah, and New York) currently have heritage area programs, and there are hundreds of locally defined grassroots heritage area initiatives. Federal designation depends upon Congressional support, whether the region's resources are nationally important and the degree to which the public is engaged in and supportive of designation. 4) What are the benefits of a partnership approach to heritage development? The partnership approach creates the opportunity for a diverse range of constituents to come together to voice the range of visions and perspectives that exist in any community that has strong connections and interests in the place in which it lives and works. Resident participation in the collaborative exercise of idea sharing and planning encourages the dialog that needs to occur to reveal the goals and visions that members of a community have in common. Basing regional planning upon the shared goals of its constituent communities, and pursuing and encouraging cooperation regardless of other perceived differences can unite the energies and resources of multiple voices in a common goal to preserve and enhance the qualities of the place in which they live. Partnering also encourages the leveraging of financial and in-kind resources and reduces the possibility of duplicating efforts and wasting scarce resources. 5) How are National Heritage Areas managed? The management entity, outlined in designation legislation, may be a State or local agency, a Federal commission, or a private nonprofit corporation. The management entity is empowered to create a management plan for the heritage area, and is authorized to receive Federal funds on the area's behalf. The authority to implement the management plan is local--it rests in the hands of willing local officials and the actions of local organizations and individuals. Designation legislation does not provide the management entity or any Federal agency with the authority to regulate land.The management entity is also prohibited from using the Federal funds it receives through enabling legislation to acquire real property. The management plan, required in the designation legislation, describes the ways the management entity and its partners can work together toward the fulfillment of their common vision. Short and long-term actions listed in a management plan might include developing and implementing an interpretation plan, assisting in the rehabilitation of a number of historic sites, working with partners to open regional visitors' centers, or creating a network of recreational trails. The management entity and its partners have three years following designation during which to develop a plan and receive approval by the Secretary of the Interior. 6) What is the role of the National Park Service? After a heritage area is designated by Congress, National Park Service staff are enlisted as partners with local community activists in planning and implementing heritage area activities. NPS enters into a cooperative agreement with the local parties. The compact is a statement of assent to mutually shared goals, and also serves as the legal vehicle through which Federal funds can be passed to non-governmental management entities. National Park Service involvement is always advisory in nature; it neither makes nor carries out management decisions. 7) Why is the National Park Service involved? Since 1916, the National Park Service has been the Federal agency responsible for preserving nationally significant natural and historic resources for present and future generations. Heritage Areas allow the Park Service to fulfill this mission without having to acquire or manage more land. Instead, NPS assists citizens who express the initiative to protect their nationally important resources. Fostering local stewardship of distinct and largely intact historic and cultural landscapes allows the National Park Service to work more directly with the public in the direct preservation and protection of important landscapes which have helped define a distinctly American identity. 8) What kinds of activities does a National Heritage Area offer to outside visitors? Geography, history, resources and maturity all shape what a National Heritage Area can offer visitors. Most National Heritage Areas offer a range of activities for all ages and interests, from recreation (biking, boating) and cultural events (food festivals, art circuits) to history and culture activities (walking tours, museums and historic buildings). Because heritage areas link resources and stories, they provide unique opportunities to understand the larger context of the region's stories, landscapes and people. Many areas provide volunteering, group tour or multiple-day excursions. Others provide combined events that highlight unusual combinations of the region's natural, historical and cultural assets, combining bike tours with Bed and Breakfast stays, for example. You can also combine your trip to a National Heritage Areas with a nearby National Park Service site or trail. Finally, Mr. Flynn's reference to a GAO report also bears examination. On March 20, 2004, the U.S. GAO published a report (GAO-04-593T) titled A More Systematic Process for Establishing National Heritage Areas and Actions to Improve Their Accountability Are Needed. Although this report dealt chiefly with the creation and management of National Heritage Areas by the National Park Service, the GAO was also charged by the U.S. Congress with the task of assessing the "...extent to which, if at all, these areas have affected private property rights." Not surprisingly, the GAO's methodology in approaching the property rights question was considerably stronger than the email survey we have conducted. Their methodology regarding private property was described as follows in the report (pp. 19-20) ...we discussed this issue with the
national
coordinator, regional officials, the Executive Director of the Alliance
of
National Heritage Areas—an organization that coordinates and supports
heritage
areas’ efforts and is their collective interface with the Park
Service—the
executive directors of the 23 heritage areas that were established at
the
time of our work, and representatives of several private property
rights advocacy
groups and individuals, including the American Land Rights Association,
the
American Policy Center, the Center for Private Conservation, the
Heritage
Foundation, the National Wilderness Institute, and the Private Property
Foundation
of America. In each of these discussions, we asked the individuals if
they
were aware of any cases in which a heritage area had positively or
negatively
affected an individual’s property rights or restricted its use.
GAO staff visited several operational NHAs -- "Augusta Canal, Ohio and Erie Canal, Rivers of Steel, Shenandoah Valley Battlefields, South Carolina, Southwestern Pennsylvania (Path of Progress), Tennessee Civil War, and Wheeling National Heritage Areas" -- to assess their research questions on site. According to the GAO report, none of their study's efforts produced an example of of an abridgement of property rights. The GAO's discussion and conclusions regarding the property rights issue and investigation are provided in full below: National heritage areas do not
appear to have affected private property rights, although private
property rights
advocates have raised a number of concerns about the potential effects
of
heritage areas on property owners’ rights and land use. These advocates
are
concerned that heritage areas may be allowed to acquire or otherwise
impose
federal controls on nonfederal lands. However, the designating
legislation
and the management plans of some areas explicitly place limits on the
areas’
ability to affect private property rights and use. In this regard,
eight
areas’ designating legislation stated that the federal government
cannot
impose zoning or land use controls on the heritage areas. Moreover, in
some
cases, the legislation included explicit assurances that the areas
would
not affect the rights of private property owners. For example, the
legislation
creating 13 of the 24 heritage areas stated that the area’s managing
entity
cannot interfere with any person’s rights with respect to private
property
or have authority over local zoning ordinances or land use planning.
While
management entities of heritage areas are allowed to receive or
purchase
real property from a willing seller, under their designating
legislation,
most areas are prohibited from using appropriated funds for this
purpose.4
In addition, the designating legislation for five heritage areas
requires
them to convey the property to an appropriate public or private land
managing
agency.
As a further protection of property rights, the management plans of some heritage areas deny the managing entity authority to influence zoning or land use. For example, at least six management plans state that the managing entities have no authority over local zoning laws or land use regulations. However, most of the management plans state that local governments’ participation will be crucial to the success of the heritage area and encourage local governments to implement land use policies that are consistent with the plan. Some plans offer to aid local government planning activities through information sharing or technical or financial assistance to achieve their cooperation. Property rights advocates are concerned that such provisions give heritage areas an opportunity to indirectly influence zoning and land use planning, which could restrict owners’ use of their property. Some of the management plans state the need to develop strong partnerships with private landowners or recommend that management entities enter into cooperative agreements with landowners for any actions that include private property. Despite concerns about private property rights, officials at the 24 heritage areas, Park Service headquarters and regional staff working with these areas, and representatives of six national property rights groups that we contacted were unable to provide us with a single example of a heritage area directly affecting—positively or negatively—private property values or use. We conclude that despite concerns that National Heritage Area designations inhibit natural resources activities, we, like GAO, have been unable to find any tangible evidence of such restriction. |