Lobby Day Plenary Session: Remarks by Richard Moe
Washington, DC, March 3, 2010
Welcome – and thanks for being here. Lobby Day is always one of the most important events on the preservation calendar – but this year we have some especially compelling reasons for meeting with members of Congress.
As you all know, last month, President Obama released his budget, which made sweeping cuts to historic preservation. Not since the 1980's has there been such an assault on the programs that protect America's heritage.
Among other things, the proposed budget completely eliminates funding for the Save America's Treasures and Preserve America programs, and cuts the National Heritage Areas program in half.
As justification for these cuts, the Administration claims:
- SAT and Preserve America "weren't working well";
- the programs "lack rigorous performance metrics and evaluation efforts, so benefits remain unclear"; and finally,
- the programs "have not demonstrated how they contribute to nationwide historic preservation goals" and support the core mission of the National Park service.
This makes no sense.
At a time when sustainability and job creation are top priorities for the Administration, it is tragically shortsighted to overlook – or even cripple – the economic power and potential of historic preservation programs such as SAT, Preserve America and National Heritage Areas.
For example, SAT received a $25 million appropriation last year; Preserve America got just under $5 million, and the National Heritage Areas got $18 million – all amounting to mere "decimal dust" in the federal budget. In return for the government's investment, these programs create jobs, leverage private dollars, and encourage heritage tourism and community revitalization. And because they require a dollar-for-dollar match, they often create productive, sustained partnerships with corporations, foundations and individuals.
Stating that these programs "aren't working well" or that that their "benefits remain unclear" is puzzling, to say the least. Consider job creation, for example. According to one study, between 1999 and 2009, SAT projects created more than 16,000 jobs at a cost of about $13,800 per job. By contrast, the White House has announced that job creation through the Administration's stimulus package costs about $248,000 per job. It seems pretty clear to me which program is "working well." Instead of eliminating this program, it should be doubled or tripled.
As for the State and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices, the good news is that the budget proposal calls for them to get the same funding as last year – about $46 million and $8 million, respectively. But you all know the bad news: because the number of Tribal Preservation Offices has grown significantly over the past year, "level funding" actually means fewer dollars for each office. And, reductions in state budgets plus an influx of new project reviews sparked by economic stimulus money means that these offices continue to be inadequately funded, seriously understaffed, and often unable to keep up with their enormous workloads.
Another irony: In the President's budget request, programs for sustainable communities and land and water conservation fare very well – which isn't surprising, since this administration has made sustainable communities and a healthy environment key priorities. What is surprising – and disappointing – is the Administration's failure to see preservation as a key component of creating sustainable communities, conserving natural resources and stimulating economic growth.
As many of you are painfully aware, state programs are also getting decimated – or completely eliminated – at a scale we haven't seen before.
Not only do these cuts and de-facto reductions adversely affect the very core of the national historic preservation program, but it has important implications for our legislative agenda in Washington. For several years now, we've been working hard to get Congress to pass a package of amendments to make the historic tax credit work better – especially for economic development and job creation. As you know, this compliments years of work to create a similar incentive to help the owners of historic homes.
Well, with the budget as bleak as it is and the damage its doing to at the state and federal levels to the Preservation Offices, we're in danger of making improvements to our tax credit just when its review infrastructure is being weakened by lack of funds.
We're issuing an all-out call to action to the preservation community. But I believe we ought to look at the budget proposal as a wake-up call, too.
Historic preservation has a brand problem: We are still seen primarily as "those 'old buildings' people." Because of this, and especially in light of the President's budget proposal, I believe we need to ask ourselves this question: Does the American preservation movement need to rethink what we do and how we do it?
First of all, we need to make sure everyone knows that rehabilitating an historic or older building is all about jobs and improving the economy. Rehab and retrofit are labor-intensive and they create more jobs than new construction. The historic tax credit alone has created 1.8 Million jobs – 58,000 last year alone, at an average cost of $9,000 per job – and has fostered economic development cities and rural towns across the nation. Historic tax credits have leveraged $85 billion in private investment since Congress established the program.
And as America develops a new awareness of the cost and value of energy, the retrofitting of older and historic buildings for increased efficiency creates jobs in new and growing markets. That's why the House and Senate are including energy provisions in jobs bills being considered by Congress. So, we have a story to tell – the story is that historic preservation is relevant – and we need to get the word out. Our champions in Congress are leading the charge. Rep. Allyson Schwartz continues to push hard for amendments to the historic tax credit through the Community Restoration and Revitalization Act as her committee develops a jobs bill. And Rep. Peter Welch has fought to include job-creating incentives for historic buildings in his Retrofit for Energy and Environmental Performance (REEP) bill in Congress. We need to back them up.
In fact, tomorrow the National Trust Community Investment Corporation and the Historic Tax Credit Coalition are releasing a report they commissioned through Rutgers University that has some pretty compelling and comprehensive data on the tremendous power of historic preservation and job creation. The report in its entirety will be available on Preservation Nation for you to use in making that case.
At the National Trust's annual conference in Nashville last fall, we convened about 300 preservationists – 100 in person, 200 by web cam – and asked them this question: "How can the American preservation movement align with national efforts to address climate change and promote environmental sustainability?"
We got several good answers: Do more research, do a better job of engaging relevant federal agencies in our work, create new financial incentives to encourage preservation, and so on. But one resounding conclusion was that we need to look at our own policies and programs and make sure they're still working.
Americans everywhere – elected officials, business leaders and "ordinary" citizens – are engaged in a great national debate about how we address climate change, how we create more sustainable places to live, how we provide a decent quality of life and good jobs. They're talking about things like where and how growth should be encouraged, how we move people from one place to another, where we grow our food, how we use new, cleaner technologies. These ideas have entered the mainstream, and there's tremendous vitality in the discussions going on right now.
The irony is that we preservationists have been thinking about and acting on these issues for years. But in many cases, when decisions are being made and budgets are being developed, we aren't at the table. We aren't even in the room.
We are engaging preservationists across the country in a national effort to save the programs we fought hard to create – like SAT, Preserve America, and others. We also have to address issues like preservation tax incentives, jobs, and sustainability. That's a big job – but while we're doing it, I believe we have to do something even bigger. We have to bring the preservation voice into every discussion about how communities change and grow. In short, we have to demonstrate that we're relevant to the issues the American people care about.
While we're talking to others, we also need to talk among ourselves, to ask ourselves some tough questions. Are current preservation regulations strong enough – or are preservationists too strongly focused on regulation? Do we need to rethink, or reinvent, or at least tweak the preservation movement? If so, how do we do it, and what should we aim for? I don't have the answers – but I believe these are the right questions.
I have no doubt in my mind that the work we do is important and more relevant than ever. But even though we've made enormous progress in recent years, even though many of the ideas we've espoused have caught the attention of policy makers, we have to face the fact that we still haven't convinced people that preservation is important enough – relevant enough – to be included in state and federal budgets or to be assigned a key role in programs designed to address the major issues facing our nation.
We need to do a better job of telling our stories and documenting our achievements – the jobs we've created, the economic and social and environmental benefits we've sparked. In short, we need to demonstrate the effectiveness and relevance of historic preservation as an essential component of any effort to dig our way out of the economic crisis.
We have our work cut out for us as we knock on the doors of decision makers here in Washington and at state capitols and city halls all over the country. It's an enormous challenge – but we can meet it by working work together and through your strong advocacy tomorrow on the Hill.
Comments
This story is closed to new comments.
Submitted by Amanda B at: March 2, 2010
Law student/member of SALVAGE student organization for art and historic preservation