Tweet
From the National Trust website...
Go to this website to email your Senators and Reps.
SAVE HISTORIC PLACES, SAVE SECTION 4(f)
Battle Over 4(f) Protections Expected in February
SENATE
The Senate will consider a six year transportation reauthorization bill early in 2004, most probably in early February. S. 1072 was approved by the Environment and Public Works Committee on November 12th.
The committee bill makes no changes to section 4(f) - an important, first round victory for advocates for historic places. However, Senator Voinovich of Ohio, pledged to pursue his amendments to weaken section 4(f) when the Senate takes up S. 1072 the first week of February. Senator Voinovich contends that protection for historic places causes more delay of highway projects in Ohio than other environmental review requirements.
Senator Voinovich referred to section 4(f) as a “process,” but preservationists know that it is a strong, well-defined standard of protection for historic places – the strongest in all Federal law. His proposals do not streamline a process, they weaken a standard of protection. He proposes to exempt certain highway projects from section 4(f)’s protections, projects that transportation agencies say have “no significant adverse effects” or “only minor impacts” on protected historic places.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The bipartisan leaders of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee introduced a six year, surface transportation reauthorization bill – H.R. 3550. Like its Senate counterpart, it contains no changes to section 4(f). The committee is expected to meet in late January of 2004 to report a reauthorization bill for House consideration in early February. Both the administration and its road builder allies are heavily lobbying committee members to adopt provisions to weaken section 4(f). Preservationists need to urge all Transportation and Infrastructure Committee members to oppose changes to 4(f). Remind members that historic preservation is an important economic and community revitalization tool in their cities and towns. Preservationists should clearly state that they are unalterably opposed to weakening the strong protections that section 4(f) gives historic places.
We vigorously oppose the notion that highway departments alone should be entrusted with decisions about the effects of highway projects on historic places, and we oppose any other changes to section 4(f) that would weaken its strong standards of protection for historic places. Section 4(f) gives ordinary citizens the power to challenge government decisions they disagree with. It’s an important right and we need to protect it.
ACTION NEEDED: Tell Congress Not to Pave Over Our History
Use the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 to reach your Members by phone or use the editable sample letter below to send an e-mail.
Advocates should tell Members of Congress that:
* Section 4(f) was enacted to halt the destruction of historic places during highway construction. Spending on highways continues to increase and so do threats to historic places. Section 4(f) remains indispensable for protecting historic resources.
* Road building has destroyed or isolated countless historic places. Cities and citizens who once stood helpless as road building destroyed their treasured historic places found the help they needed in section 4(f) to protect the places that define and set their communities apart.
* Historic places are engines of economic development and civic revitalization. Saving historic places and reusing them to bring new vitality to neighborhoods and whole cities are legacies of section 4(f).
* Section 106 is no substitute for section 4(f). Section 4(f) contains strong standards that protect historic places, i.e. an honest search for a prudent alternative and all possible planning to minimize harm, while section 106 calls for a "Think About It" examination of adverse effects.
* The mandate to enforce substantive protections of section 4(f) strengthens the section 106 consultation process, and many states conduct 106 reviews fully aware of 4(f) substantive protections. For highway projects, crippling 4(f) inevitably cripples 106.
* Section 106 procedural safeguards are likely to be further weakened by regulation that will give transportation and other agencies the right to ignore the views of preservationists and do what they want.
* Citizens, communities and historic preservation officials must not be denied the right to decide issues of historic significance and degrees of harm to historic places. This power cannot be vested solely in transportation agencies.
* Citizen and community involvement in transportation project considerations must remain a key ingredient in historic preservation reviews - as it has been under Section 4(f).
* A major government study says that many of the 200 major steps in a road project’s life can lead to delays. Oddly, only environmental reviews seem to get all the attention despite evidence that protection for historic places is far down the list of causes of project delay.
* The Department of Transportation has honored completed projects that were at first halted for failing to adhere to section 4(f). These projects went on to become models of community-based planning and context sensitive design once they followed the letter and spirit of section 4(f).
Go to this website to email your Senators and Reps.
SAVE HISTORIC PLACES, SAVE SECTION 4(f)
Battle Over 4(f) Protections Expected in February
SENATE
The Senate will consider a six year transportation reauthorization bill early in 2004, most probably in early February. S. 1072 was approved by the Environment and Public Works Committee on November 12th.
The committee bill makes no changes to section 4(f) - an important, first round victory for advocates for historic places. However, Senator Voinovich of Ohio, pledged to pursue his amendments to weaken section 4(f) when the Senate takes up S. 1072 the first week of February. Senator Voinovich contends that protection for historic places causes more delay of highway projects in Ohio than other environmental review requirements.
Senator Voinovich referred to section 4(f) as a “process,” but preservationists know that it is a strong, well-defined standard of protection for historic places – the strongest in all Federal law. His proposals do not streamline a process, they weaken a standard of protection. He proposes to exempt certain highway projects from section 4(f)’s protections, projects that transportation agencies say have “no significant adverse effects” or “only minor impacts” on protected historic places.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
The bipartisan leaders of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee introduced a six year, surface transportation reauthorization bill – H.R. 3550. Like its Senate counterpart, it contains no changes to section 4(f). The committee is expected to meet in late January of 2004 to report a reauthorization bill for House consideration in early February. Both the administration and its road builder allies are heavily lobbying committee members to adopt provisions to weaken section 4(f). Preservationists need to urge all Transportation and Infrastructure Committee members to oppose changes to 4(f). Remind members that historic preservation is an important economic and community revitalization tool in their cities and towns. Preservationists should clearly state that they are unalterably opposed to weakening the strong protections that section 4(f) gives historic places.
We vigorously oppose the notion that highway departments alone should be entrusted with decisions about the effects of highway projects on historic places, and we oppose any other changes to section 4(f) that would weaken its strong standards of protection for historic places. Section 4(f) gives ordinary citizens the power to challenge government decisions they disagree with. It’s an important right and we need to protect it.
ACTION NEEDED: Tell Congress Not to Pave Over Our History
Use the U.S. Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 to reach your Members by phone or use the editable sample letter below to send an e-mail.
Advocates should tell Members of Congress that:
* Section 4(f) was enacted to halt the destruction of historic places during highway construction. Spending on highways continues to increase and so do threats to historic places. Section 4(f) remains indispensable for protecting historic resources.
* Road building has destroyed or isolated countless historic places. Cities and citizens who once stood helpless as road building destroyed their treasured historic places found the help they needed in section 4(f) to protect the places that define and set their communities apart.
* Historic places are engines of economic development and civic revitalization. Saving historic places and reusing them to bring new vitality to neighborhoods and whole cities are legacies of section 4(f).
* Section 106 is no substitute for section 4(f). Section 4(f) contains strong standards that protect historic places, i.e. an honest search for a prudent alternative and all possible planning to minimize harm, while section 106 calls for a "Think About It" examination of adverse effects.
* The mandate to enforce substantive protections of section 4(f) strengthens the section 106 consultation process, and many states conduct 106 reviews fully aware of 4(f) substantive protections. For highway projects, crippling 4(f) inevitably cripples 106.
* Section 106 procedural safeguards are likely to be further weakened by regulation that will give transportation and other agencies the right to ignore the views of preservationists and do what they want.
* Citizens, communities and historic preservation officials must not be denied the right to decide issues of historic significance and degrees of harm to historic places. This power cannot be vested solely in transportation agencies.
* Citizen and community involvement in transportation project considerations must remain a key ingredient in historic preservation reviews - as it has been under Section 4(f).
* A major government study says that many of the 200 major steps in a road project’s life can lead to delays. Oddly, only environmental reviews seem to get all the attention despite evidence that protection for historic places is far down the list of causes of project delay.
* The Department of Transportation has honored completed projects that were at first halted for failing to adhere to section 4(f). These projects went on to become models of community-based planning and context sensitive design once they followed the letter and spirit of section 4(f).