The country’s bad mood may doom state heritage-tourism plan
A program to promote the maritime heritage of Puget Sound and the Washington coast could save historic vessels, boost waterfront towns and create jobs, so why is it not finding more support?
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administraion
Editor's note: The top of this story has been edited in response to a comment below.
The state government is pursuing a beautiful idea: Create a groundbreaking marketing project covering Puget Sound and the Pacific Coast of Washington State, with the goal of boosting the tourism economy in tough times and honoring the region’s maritime heritage. The Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation has just released a feasibility study blessing the notion, one of many steps toward Congressional action to make the project happen. But given tight times and the experience of another, similar idea in southwest Washington, the project may run straight into the meat grinder of the country’s bad mood and cranky Tea Party sympathizers.
The study, commissioned in 2008, contains no surprises. Folks working on heritage issues for years, including myself, knew it would call on Congress to designate the saltwater shoreline and waterways of Puget Sound, the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and the Pacific Coast from Cape Flattery to Pacific County a National Heritage Area. If created today, it would be the country’s 50th heritage area, and the first to focus solely on maritime heritage.
Designation would be mostly symbolic — as if Congress ordered a giant sign placed on the shoreline of Puget Sound reading, “This is an important place. Come visit and spend some money.”
The heritage area would be run by a not-for-profit — the report singles out the respected Washington Trust for Historic Preservation as a good candidate — which would get funding from a variety of sources, including the federal government. Total budget: about $500,000 in start-up costs and an additional $500,000 a year in operating expenses, according to the study. The money would be used to promote the heritage area, enticing tourists and locals to visit dozens of tall ships, maritime museums, lighthouses, and other attractions in western Washington. There might even be some money for grants to help heritage organizations with their own promotion.
Bottom line: The heritage area would generate jobs while raising the profile and prestige of places such as Port Townsend, home to the Northwest Maritime Center, a brand-new exhibit and education space on the city’s waterfront. A designation could help historic ships such as the Comanche, a huge World War II-era tugboat struggling to make ends meet and preserve the memories of the veterans who served on her. If it were part of a heritage area, Comanche might have an easier time convincing foundations and donors to give money.
But supporters of this common-sense, authentically conservative strategy face enormous hurdles, starting with the Obama administration. As Knute Berger reported in February, the president has proposed cutting the federal heritage area program budget in half, as well as eliminating other preservation programs. Obama argues that the programs can’t demonstrate a return on investment, despite the direct experience of heritage organizations that have used federal grants to hire workers and buy products to fix up buildings and old ships.
The newest and biggest obstacle is the country’s bad mood. It’s already killed another heritage area idea in the Northwest. Earlier this month, ShoreBank Enterprise Cascadia, a not-for-profit bank with offices in Ilwaco and Portland, backed out of a partnership with the National Park Service to create a national heritage area covering the Washington and Oregon counties surrounding the mouth of the Columbia River. The idea was a hit in Oregon. But according to the Longview Daily News, some property owners in “government-wary” Wahkiakum County “feared the designation . . . would lead to property rights restrictions.” Residents worried about non-existent rules for “what color they could paint their barn.”
Reassurances that Congress could write the designation law to protect property rights failed to sway the landowners. ShoreBank decided the idea wasn’t worth the headache. "We are in such an anti-government moment," Cathlamet Mayor George Wehrfritz and heritage area supporter told the Daily News. "I'm amazed this little project could be interpreted as some deep, dark scheme to take people's property."
Who would have thought that the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation — the state agency that fights to preserve our common heritage — could be a Trojan horse for the federal government’s hidden conspiracy to take away our property rights. Of course, that’s paranoid nonsense. The study goes out of its way to say private property is protected under the heritage area law. But the tea-party right might cry “You’re lying!” and be believed, thus scuttling the heritage area.
The next step for the heritage area is in the hands of the National Park Service; it must carry the proposal to Capitol Hill and persuade skittish lawmakers to sign on. But then, maybe we shouldn’t trust the NPS. Don’t its rangers wear those scary hats and green uniforms that make them look like police?
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Wed, Jun 30, 5:53 a.m. Inappropriate
Joe - What are you writing??? No one held back the plan..it was simply at the printers....the printers took much longer than we expected. And who prodded me?? I don't remember anyone calling or asking me anything. You never called me once. How can you say you nagged me? The day after we got the plan in the agency we mailed it out to our Congressional representatives and all others. Awhile later we put it on the WEB. I just got called by Congressman Dicks' office to discuss how to move this forward. I came across one, yes one, tea party guy from Pierce county who was upset. I spent an entire spring and summer and fall talking about the project to ports, cities and counties and holding public meetings as required by the feds. Why didn't you call me before you wrote a piece that was completely wrong and untrue? I am not only amazed that you wrote this...when it was simply a case of printers taking a long time... I am shocked that Crosscut didn't do a fact check before putting this on the Web. All you had to do Joe was call... Also, many studies have taken 5 years...we did it in record time. Ask the NPS. I think I deserve an apology for this one. There was no stalling ...only printers. Sorry Joe..no fun government conspiracy on this one....just bad journalism on your part.
Posted Wed, Jun 30, 7:11 a.m. Inappropriate
Allyson,
The report is dated April 2010. I had checked several times for the report at the DAHP website over the past months and could never find it. I attempted to contact you by email on June 13 with no response. However, I should've followed up with a phone call. Nonetheless, the link to the study appeared on the DAHP blog June 22, three months after the report was delivered. It also appeared on the DAHP home page at about the same time. In my view, DAHP should've made this important report widely accessible much, much earlier. If the printer were the issue, why not post a preliminary version in April or early May?
However, such mechanics are not really important. The real problem is Congress and public opinion. I believe potential and actual opposition to the heritage area is wider than one guy in Pierce County. What is DAHP's strategy for persuading our Congressional delegation to act, in spite of the current anti-government mood and the Obama administration's plans to cut the heritage area program budget?
Joe Follansbee
Posted Wed, Jun 30, 7:24 a.m. Inappropriate
I am the intern at DAHP whose responsibility it was to release the report. Here is the timeline of the agency’s actions:
June 3, 2010- DAHP received the physical copies of the completed study from our consultants. The report was a couple days late due to problems with the printer. An email announcing this report was sent to the Steering Committee that day. This was a Thursday, the last day in DAHP’s Monday-Thursday work week.
June 7, 2010- DAHP mailed physical copies of the completed study. This was the next work day after it was received.
June 22, 2010- The finalized electronic copy of the feasibility study was delivered to DAHP.
June 22, 2010- The electronic copy of the study was released on DAHP’s website and blog.
Aaron Cole
Posted Wed, Jun 30, 7:33 a.m. Inappropriate
Joe - You have misrepresented the agency actions and misrepresented the time line. I think receiving an electronic copy of the document and then placing on our WEB site that afternoon is pretty quick for state government. Turning it around and getting the hard copy out the door in days is pretty good time considering we had a week-end in between.
We are owed an apology and a retraction.
Posted Wed, Jun 30, 8:32 a.m. Inappropriate
Joe - The e-mail that you are referring to just asks that you go on the distribution list (we didn't distribute the report we put it on our site as a PDF). You don't ask anything like "why is it held up?" "why is it taking so long?" All you say is you met Betsy Davis and can you be on the distribution list.. your e-mail was sent on June 13th and we had it on the WEB on June 22nd. We actually had the report mailed out (June 7th, 8th and 9th) before you even asked to be on the distribution list on June 13th. There was no prodding or nagging on your part. Your complaints about the agency are pure fiction.
Posted Wed, Jun 30, 9:35 a.m. Inappropriate
Allyson - UNCLE! Seriously, I screwed up on the timeline. My apologies. I've fixed the first paragraph.
Lest I be misinterpreted, I'm on your side. I really want this maritime heritage area to happen. But I'm deathly afraid the poisonous political environment and disastrous budget constraints are going to delay, if not kill, the project. It's nice to hear that Norm Dicks is interested, but you've got at least five congress-people to convince, and one of them, Brian Baird, (who represents Wakhiakum County, by the way) is leaving. He'll likely be gone by the time Congress gets around to acting. His district might go Republican. What of the heritage area's prospects then?
Posted Wed, Jun 30, 3:21 p.m. Inappropriate
If you want the program funded you have to say, "or children will die".
Posted Wed, Jun 30, 6:02 p.m. Inappropriate
If the people in NW Washington want a National Heritage Area, then put up the front money and commit the resources annually to do so, but come on, the federal giveaway deals are OVER. Other areas may have gotten designated areas with federal dollars when the money faucet appeared infinite, but we're not just plain out of money, folks; so are our grandchildren because of our profligate spending on anything and everything over a long period of time. This is just one small program among thousands that are going to be affected. You can and did blame the sour mood of Tea Partiers, but they are simply the messengers of bad news. They represent a group of people who finally said enough spending already, we just don't have the money, period.
I live in the Columbia River area that was slated to be designated the Columbia-Pacific National Heritage Area, and frankly, we have already done a pretty good job of promoting this area as something grand to visit. We don't need nor do we want another permanent layer of feel-good bureaucracy using an exclusively appointed non-profit to filter federal dollars in the name of heritage and history. We need successful businesses and real jobs to produce the income to generate local tax dollars wherein we can promote the area properly ourselves, without the help of the restrictions imposed by the federal government. And Seattle and the Straights of Juan de Fuca can do the same. As for some people in Wahkiakum county who were afraid of property control, perhaps there were some who overstated the issue, but frankly they don't have to look very far upriver to see another Columbia River designation that indeed highly restricted development, known as the Columbia Gorge National Scenic Area. Promises that a Heritage Area was not into property control didn't exactly sound plausible, especially if permanently designated by an Act of Congress; the designation would likely be used as a plausible reason to object to just about any development because it might not fit into the heritage or historical designation of the green zone designated on the Heritage map. Please don't tell me it wouldn't have been used just for that purpose. Anyway, those were some of the reasons people objected to this designation. It had nothing to do with a bad mood. BTW, even the Park Service has admitted that the designation of a Heritage has not been shown to generate additional tourism, despite the hype that new proposals claim. It's one more example of something that feels and looks great on the surface, but in the end becomes just another lost part of the federal budget morass wherein a program is created for the benefit of the program administrators. It's much better to fund and control it locally; it always will be better that way. Get used to looking in the mirror to help your area rather than the federal government. That's what we're trying to do down this way, or at least it is hoped. ArtH--Astoria
Posted Thu, Jul 1, 8:09 a.m. Inappropriate
I agree with Art H. We have a government that is growing by injecting themselves into all areas of our lives. Enough already. We, the locals, can manage our own lives. Thank you for the thoughts though.
Posted Fri, Jul 2, 8:31 a.m. Inappropriate
Sheesh! The locals can manage their lives? Well, excuse me for having lived through the time when they did- and it was a disaster. Poor but honest structures were steadily replaced by poorer dishonest structures, but, thank heavens, most of the garbage from the 50s and 70s has fallen under the weight of its own awfulness. Sadly, the polluted harbors won't clean themselves up. Poulsbo once was an oyster-harvesting town, but it hasn't been safe to eat an oyster from there for over a decade. But, hey, not to worry, we don't eat seafood any more, since we killed the salmon runs and fished out the rockfish.
Naturally, there are a lot of people who would like to have us forget the past. It makes it a lot easier for someone to believe that "We, the locals, can manage our own lives".
As if.
Posted Fri, Jul 2, 11:22 a.m. Inappropriate
I immediately thought of the Columbia Gorge National Scenic Area and its highly restricted development. The "I'm deathly afraid the poisonous political environment and disastrous budget constraints are going to delay, if not kill, the project." and the inability to be accurate about the DHAP time line has basically painted this writer as unable to be objective and reflects on Crosscut as just being a shill.
Posted Fri, Jul 2, 11:44 a.m. Inappropriate
Whatever the other issues are, I am not in favor of this action. We are have high freeway congestion, even more so in summer months, and since the military moved into Puget Sound the quality of life and cost of living has changed signigicantly. I don't want any more "marketing" of our area....I have lived here for over 30 years and we are losing farmland because of development and more people wanting to live here. Stop marketing Puget Sound!!! We are congested enough!!!
Posted Wed, Jul 7, 6:45 a.m. Inappropriate
I don't trust the National Park Service, since they ordered the scrapping of the Steamer Nobska in Boston, the Ellis Island Ferry in New York and now are lobbying for the destruction of Jack (Kerouac)'s Bridge in Lowell, Ma... Trojan horse no... But the NPS can and often does act as an agent of destruction for our nation's heritage.
Steven Lindsey
state rep
Ches-3
Keene, NH
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.