Bloggers at ParkRemark, National Parks Traveler and Wild Wilderness have, in recent days,
all zeroed in upon the impending commercialization and privatization of
historical buildings within the Sandy Hook unit of the National Park Service's
Gateway National Recreation Area.
What is at stake is NOT so much the fate of bricks and mortar. What is at
stake is very much more.
In my estimation, at a barest minimum what is at stake is the fate of the
entire National Park System. Thinking more expansively, what is at stake is the
concept of a "commons". What is at stake is not merely facilitating the
corporate takeover of yet another National Park, it is greasing the way for the
takeover of absolutely everything we, as Americans, own in common.
If America's Crown Jewels (our National Parks) are not safe then what, if
anything, is?
Pasted below are some excellent contributions to this discussion
from ParkRemark. How about visiting the ParkRemark blog and sharing your
thoughts on this important topic!
Scott
--- begin quoted ---
November 2, 2006
What Cost to Save
Historic Ft. Hancock?
Compared to
exploding geysers, red rock canyons, and ice covered mountains, public policy is
pretty boring stuff. No one is going to send home a postcard containing the text
of the National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 for instance. But, there is language
contained within that NHPA that is making a mess for the people fighting private development in
Sandy Hook at the Gateway National Recreation
Area.
Part of the argument against private development at Sandy Hook
is that it is public property and that there is something illegal (if not at
least unethical) for a corporation to come in and make a profit at our expense.
Unfortunately, that isn't a strong argument anymore. A very quick look around
the Park Service reveals many corporations
making big profits at the expense of park owners (you and me). You are probably
familiar with these: In Yosemite, Delaware North runs not only the hotel
concession, but operates for-profit gift shops, a grocery store, and
interpretive services. At Mount Rushmore,
visitors are required to pay to park at
a concessionaire run parking lot within the monument. And if you'd like to visit Alcatraz Island or the Statue of Liberty you must pay a private
for-profit concessionaire for a boat ride. The Presidio, a former military installation
like Ft Hancock, is now being managed by the Park Service to pay its own way
with many diverse lease holders occupying the historic buildings on base.
The central problem with Sandy Hook is the preservation of its historic
buildings. Like any historic building, without attention, they will fall apart.
And you know that when I say "attention", I mean money. So who pays?
A
couple days ago I highlighted an essay here at Park Remark which I called the
"Roadmap to Privatization". At
one end of the management spectrum is a "Fully Public" model, and at the other
end is the "Fully Private" model. It wouldn't surprise me if most readers
considered the "Fully Public" model the best case for managing our National
Parks. But what does reality tell us? The Parks today have made big strides into
the second model (Public Utility - entrance fees, etc) and have even stretched
into number three (Outsourcing - concessionaire run core services). So to argue,
as I have done, that the money to maintain the buildings at Sandy Hook should
come 100% from the government might be idealistically sound (Fully Public
model), but it ignores the current reality of Park Service management.
If the government won't pay, and we have decided these buildings at Ft.
Hancock are worth keeping in our historic trust, where do we get the money to
protect them? Reasonable people have pointed that the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 provides concessions to outside lease agreements.
Section 111 of the NHPA:
(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any Federal agency
after consultation with the Council, shall, to the extent practicable,
establish and implement alternatives for historic properties, including
adaptive use, that are not needed for current or projected agency purposes,
and may lease an historic property owned by the agency to any person or
organization, or exchange any property owned by the agency with comparable
historic property, if the agency head determines that the lease or exchange
will adequately insure the preservation of the historic property.
(b)
The proceeds of any lease under subsection (a) may, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, be retained by the agency entering into such lease and used
to defray the costs of administration, maintenance, repair, and related
expenses incurred by the agency with respect to such property or other
properties which are on the National Register which are owned by, or are under
the jurisdiction or control of, such agency. Any surplus proceeds from such
leases shall be deposited into the Treasury of the United States at the end of
the second fiscal year following the fiscal year in which such proceeds were
received. So, there ya go. That is our
solution. If we don't want the buildings to crumble to the ground, and the
government will not pay for the necessary improvements, the law allows us to
find private lessees who will make those improvements. But does that make it
right? I would answer "no, it does not".
The arrangement
at the Presidio is a mess (did you know that you can link directly to "Leasing Opportunities" from the Presidio nps.gov homepage?). When the
federal budget is created each year, I imagine that some government accountant
sees the Park Service as a giant liability -- $2 billion down the hole
annually. But the Presidio represents (for this government accountant) an
opportunity to turn a liability into an asset, a chance to make some money back.
And if the Presidio makes money, the accountant wonders, why can't we do the
same thing at other park units? Sandy Hook has been added to this grand
experiment.
For those of you who want that "Fully Public" model for the
parks, consider Scot Silver's words as quoted
at the National Parks Traveler last week:
When we accept commercialization, we can be assured that MORE
commercialization will be forced down our throats. If we accept outsourcing,
we can be assured that MORE outsourcing will follow. Same with privatization,
user fees, reliance upon volunteers, etc. ... If one accepts the solutions
that are being offered, then the government will make further cuts in funding.
If park managers prove they can do more with less -- then they will be given
less and told to do more. Which is worse: No funding for
preservation of buildings at Ft Hancock which leads eventually to their
destruction, OR the continued spread of privatization across areas managed by
the National Park Service? Sounds a bit like
an ultimatum, doesn't it? How would you answer?
|
- Privatization 
