Reading the editorial pages over breakfast every morning has
gotten me thinking about how the manifest if not exactly earth-shaking problems
of historic preservation in and around the U.S. government might be addressed
in the face of the much-trumpeted (and, I think, real) need to reduce the size
and cost of the federal establishment.
One reason the trumpeting (most of it, sadly, from
Republican elephants) resonates with me is that over the last 45 years I’ve
seen how the government-focused preservation programs and policies created –
with the best of intentions – in the 1960s and 70s have evolved. Or failed to evolve.
The solutions advanced by Congress in the 1960s and 70s to
problems in historic preservation involved the creation of bureaucracies – the external
programs of the National Park Service (NPS), the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation (ACHP), the State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs), all via
the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA). This was perfectly understandable, but it
failed to account for a fundamental principle:
bureaucracies tend to become fossilized, inward-looking, resistant to
innovation, and self-protective. Their
own survival, and the survival-to-retirement of their employees, come to
dominate their thinking and actions, at the expense of whatever they were created
to do.
This principle is not my independent invention; it reflects
(poorly, no doubt) elements of the deep thinking on bureaucracy of scholars
like Ludwig von Mises (http://mises.org/) and zingers
like those of John Moore (http://www.tinyvital.com/Misc/Lawsburo.htm
). The principle is no less
true for being common knowledge, and its operation is evident to anyone taking more than the most casual
glance at today’s U.S. federal historic preservation “program.” No one who knows that “program” expects
leadership, or even much thought, from NPS, the ACHP, or the SHPOs; the sole
preoccupation of these entities today is with maintaining the status quo that
allows them and their personnel to survive.
But there are reasons for the creation of bureaucracies;
they provide services and regulate things that need regulating. The federal historic preservation bureaucracy
fulfills the following functions:
1. Service functions:
a.
Maintaining and expanding the National Register
of Historic Places (NRHP);
b.
Providing a historic preservation point of contact
(the SHPO) in each state capitol;
c.
Recording historic properties via the Historic
American Buildings Survey (HABS) and its kin;
d.
Passing on minor grant funds and technical
assistance/direction to Indian tribes and local governments; and
e.
Promulgating regulations, guidelines, standards,
and the like.
2. Regulatory functions:
a.
Assisting in/overseeing NHPA Section 106 review
by ostensibly self-regulating federal agencies; and
b.
Reviewing private historic building/structure
rehabilitation projects in terms of eligibility for tax credits.
There are a few other functions, but those are the main ones
– all of which, of course, have various more or less complicated sub-elements.
So let’s consider: are there ways to perform these functions
without the bureaucracies, or while sharply reducing them in size? I think there are.
The National Register: IF there is value in maintaining a national
register of historic places – I’m not at all sure there is, but let’s suppose
there is – there’s no reason to have a government agency do it. The function could easily and efficiently be
contracted out, to something like the National Trust for Historic
Preservation. This might just shift the
bureaucracy from one place to another, but in contracting out, the federal
government could put strict limits on what it would pay for, leaving it to the
contractor to seek funding elsewhere if it wanted to expand or elaborate the
list. Alternatively, as I’ve argued
elsewhere, the Register could be done away with altogether, letting tribal,
state, and local lists take its place.
Points of contact: The SHPOs – some of them, at least – perform useful
functions, some of which are more impeded than facilitated by their overseer,
the National Park Service. A modest
program of continued support is probably justified for the SHPOs and their
equivalents in tribal and local governments, but the rules under which that
program operates could, I think, be significantly reformed, and the whole
operation could probably be merged with other programs of federal assistance.
Recording
properties: HABS and its brethren
are academic quasi-research projects that were useful at their inception in the
1930s but have long ago become irrelevant.
Nothing but federal jobs would be lost if they were eliminated.
Grants and technical
assistance: As noted above, some
sort of grant assistance is probably needed by tribes and local governments as
well as by states, but there are probably ways to merge such grants with other
like programs and achieve significant efficiencies. As for technical assistance, it has been a
long time since NPS has provided anything very useful; no one would miss such
assistance if it disappeared.
Regulations,
standards, guidelines: We already
have more than anyone attends to.
Assisting in Section
106 review: The Section 106 review
process has become largely dysfunctional.
It is overburdened with procedure and virtually unencumbered by
substance. Its reasonably clear initial
function – to identify and resolve conflicts between historic preservation and
other public interests – has been lost in the thicket of agency procedures,
programmatic agreements, and intricate side-deals with SHPOs whose growth the
ACHP has encouraged. A minor amendment
to Section 106 could preserve and even provide a basis for recovering the
utility of Section 106 review while clarifying the roles of SHPOs and
eliminating the ACHP altogether.
Tax credit review: This undoubtedly useful function could be
performed by SHPOs and/or local preservation authorities with minimal technical
oversight. Granted, someone would have
to provide that oversight, but this is another function that could be
contracted out.
So there: a modest reduction in the size of government
coupled with, conceivably, a considerable increase in efficiency,
effectiveness, and responsibility. Obviously
the devil is in the details of any such change, and I don’t kid myself about
whether any such thing is likely to happen.
And I realize that I’m proposing the explicit abrogation of federal
leadership in historic preservation. But we haven’t seen any federal leadership
in historic preservation in at least a couple of decades, so seriously, folks,
what’s the difference?
No comments:
Post a Comment