Columbia-Pacific National Heritage Area

Wahkiakum County is being considered for inclusion into a proposed Columbia-Pacific National Heritage Area. Grange members and others in the community are interested in what this could mean for the area. They have asked the Grange to provide a forum for discussion of the issue.

The Grays River Grange has invited people to offer a pro and con position. For the National Heritage Area are Carlton Appelo and Mike Swanson (Deep River, Naselle). Against are Jane & Robert P. Rose (Nema) along with others who signed on.

Statement In Support of the Proposed Columbia-Pacific National Heritage Area

By Carlton Appelo & Mike Swanson

The proposed Columbia-Pacific National Heritage Area would include the northern-western half of Clatsop County in Oregon, down U.S. 101 to the county border, and east to Westport. In Washington State, it would include south Pacific County. Wahkiakum County is being considered for inclusion as well, with the enthusiastic support of many residents and businesses.

At this time, there are many existing heritage areas in the eastern states, including the entire state of Tennessee, a designation that honors Civil War battle sites. While the purposes of a national heritage area include recognition and conservation of the history, culture, and landscape of the region designated, the main thrust is keeping distinctive American places, and their cultures, heritage livelihoods, and economy whole and vibrant.  It is all about maintaining a way of life that has traditionally been closely linked to the land and its history of use.  The area being considered here on the North Pacific Coast is marked by a history tied to life in the forests, on the water, and on the land. With this in mind, we believe there are two major advantages to our communities in being included:

1) Broad recognition of the Lower Columbia's rich history and natural resources, thus attracting visitors to the area;

2) The opportunity to bring federal funding to the area, available only to national heritage areas, through a heritage-targeted ShoreBank investment fund that can only be invested within the heritage area.

Regarding concerns over the federal government interfering with private property and imposing land use restrictions, the enabling law contains no such powers or intentions. There are no restrictions implied and landowners are not required to do anything or change anything with their land. Since Wahkiakum County has no land use ordinances, no ordinances would be affected by being included in the proposed area. Pacific County has a more complex legal planning situation, but there is nothing in the establishment of a national heritage area that would affect current arrangements.  Unlike the Columbia River National Scenic area, private landowners come under no strictures or penalties from the heritage area.

ShoreBank Enterprise Cascadia, the proposed NHA coordinating entity, is a well known and respected non-profit based in Ilwaco.  ShoreBank has received grants from private foundations, the federal government, and other entities. They exist to support capital projects and business development, and their funds are reinvested locally, for local benefit. Congressman Baird supported their involvement. ShoreBank, however, will not make the final decision on heritage area designation, that will come from Congress.

If the Columbia-Pacific National Heritage Area were to be established, many projects, businesses, and public benefits would be eligible to receive funding through ShoreBank heritage targeted investments in our communities.  This could have a very positive impact on the well-being and viability of our region.

We see this proposed area as an advantage and an appropriate step of recognition for the Lower Columbia region. We support the Columbia-Pacific National Heritage Area, and the inclusion of eastern Pacific County and all or a suitable section of Wahkiakum County within it. 

_____________________________________________________________________________

Statement Against the Proposed Columbia-Pacific National Heritage

The very worst thing about a National Heritage Area is that once Congress sets the boundaries, a management plan is set by the Secretary of the Interior and a management entity is named.  That plan is overseen by National Park Service.  In order to get any of the federal dollars that would come to the NHA, local government has to follow the management plan.  Great pressure is applied to local government to do this because no money comes to “preserve your natural history and culture” without compliance to the plan.  So, the fluent statements that NHA’s do not regulate private property are misleading.

All NHA’s include inventories of all property within the boundaries that the Park Service and Green groups want preserved, managed or acquired because of their so-called national historic significance.  Anyone’s property can end up falling under these guidelines.  After the boundaries are set by Congress and the management plan approved, National Park Service, the management entity and Green groups are given federal dollars, typically one million dollars a year, and told to spend that money getting the management plan enacted at the local level.  They go to local government and legislators and say, “We have identified these properties as significant.  We have identified these businesses that we deem insignificant and harm to these properties and a harm to the Heritage Area.  We don’t have the power to make these laws but you do and here is the federal money.  Now use whatever tools, whatever laws, whatever regulatory procedures you already have to make this management plan come to fruition.” Peyton Knight, Director of Environmental & Regulatory Affairs, National Center for Public Policy Research, Washington, D.C.

If NHA’s are only for promoting tourism and preserving natural history and culture, why do they need a federal management plan?  Do you want local people you vote in to office and who you can vote out of office if they don’t perform to your wishes controlling your local property laws or do you want a “management entity” non-answerable to anyone but the federal government controlling your property?  This country was founded on the rights of persons to own and protect private property rights and on representation.

Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor (same as an Area), established 1986, 24 cities & towns, 454 sq. miles.  Revised 1993 by an act of Congress.  HR 2633 IH, “To revise the boundaries of the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor in Massachusetts and Rhode Island and for other purposes”  Sec. 4  “REVISION OF THE PLAN…….shall revise the Cultural Heritage and Land Management Plan.  The revision shall address the boundary change and shall include a natural resource inventory of areas or features that should be protected, restored, managed or acquired because of their contribution to the understanding of natural cultural landscape values.” Thomas Library of Congress

The Wheeling National Heritage Area management plan was updated in 2004 with NPS officials providing, “assistance, guidance, review and key inputs” according to the plan’s Executive summary, pg 3, #31. 

When property is bought by some nonprofits that property goes off the tax rolls.  Those taxes don’t go away; the tax is spread out among remaining taxpayers.  Some nonprofits are not required to divulge financial information unless they choose to.  The Bone River Preserve in Pacific County is a case in point, a matter of public record.

The following is a list of those opposing the proposed Columbia Pacific National Heritage Area.

The Washington State Farm Bureau, The Washington State Cattlemen’s Association, The Grays Harbor Pacific Cattlemen’s Association, The Grays Harbor Pacific Farm Bureau, The Pacific County Farm Forestry Association, The Willapa Bay Water Resources Coordinating Council, The Pacific Conservation District, The Long Beach Cranberry Growers Association, The Grayland Cranberry Growers Association, The Port of Willapa Harbor, The Olympia Master Builders Association, The South Pacific County Master Builders, The Washington Farm Forestry Association

Property Owners Against National Heritage Areas - R. Jane & Robert P. Rose, Alan & Rheta Edwards, Greg & Sue Pattillo, Greg & Sharon Skadan, Walt & Karen Geran, Arlene & Al Vessey/Lougheed, Ed & Linda Whitford, Malcolm & Ardell McPhail, John & Lin Schroeder, Tim Morris, Mel & Alice Hawkins, Nick & Joanne Jambor, Jim & Trina Goulter.

Comments

[R. Jane Rose]

Excellent web site, Krist. As soon as you have a date certain for both sides of this issue to meet at the Grange, please let us know so I can let our folks know too.
Thanks.
Janie Rose

[Poul Toftemark]

Thank you gain for the information Krist.

[Blair H Brady]

From Blair H Brady. I have looked deeply into the NHA and have found no down side to it personaly. I have also been unable to document the negitive allegations spreading around about The NHA.
After speaking with many of you in district #3 and explaining what I have found and not found. I still find the vast majority in our district oppose the inclusion of our county in the NHA. AS I committed to 4 years ago when elected to represent our district not my personal views or opinions I will be opposing the NHA as that is the wish of the vast majority in our district.

[George Wehrfritz]

It is unfortunate that the NHA debate has been hijacked by outside interests (fringe intellectuals, lobbying groups for the cattle industry, etc.) and that so many folks in Wahkiakum now see this modest plan as a scheme to steal their land. I support the NHA plan, and I support Shorebank's core mission to revitalize heritage industries on the Lower Columbia.

Anyone who thinks our economy is fine without outside help should walk Main St. in Cathlamet. Our town is struggling, and I see in the NHA a small part of the solution. It would fund traitional businesses that can't get conventional bank loans. It would put people to work. Honestly, it's unrealistic to expect that more than a couple local businesses would ever be funded, or that more than a few new jobs would be created directly with NHA funding. But there is a knock-on effect when communities again become vibrant, and the NHA could move us part way to regaining the commercial vitality Cathlamet had in decades past. Commercial vitality means more businesses paying taxes, more families making homes here, more kids in our schools and a more optimistic future.

To those who oppose the NHA, my question is this: what is the alternative? Simply saying "no" to anything that comes along isn't an option. Of course, we can and should say "no" to bad ideas, but this NHA proposal isn't one of those. Revolving loan schemes and grass-roots programs to support local business work all over the world. Wahkiakum, with its pioneer tradition, can and should pioneer one here -- and by making it work, help create a new model for financially sustainable NHAs elsewhere.

One note on Commissioner Brady's recent statement. He can and should advocate for his constituency. So why not host a public meeting in District 3 to discuss the NHA plan? If all minds are already made up, so be it. But a robust discussion of the plan before us might change a mind of two.

Respectfully Submitted,
George Wehrfritz
Mayor
Town of Cathlamet

[Thea L. Pyle]

Letter from thea Pyle, Gray's River, to Commissioner Brady:

Hi Blair,

Bob tells me you came to Grange last night, and that you plan to vote against inclusion of Wahkiakum County in the proposed NHA, in spite of the fact that you are personally in favor of the proposal.

I'm sad to hear this, because it makes no sense, and because Wahkiakum could use the economic boost the NHA offers.

Who are all these "constituents" you feel you must appease? None of the people I've discussed it with oppose it, though I realize there has been a mad outcry from one faction. I am especially troubled that Mr. and Mrs. Rose, who have agitated this faction against the NHA, neither live in this county, nor within the proposed boundary of the NHA. They have sparked a local property rights paranoia that really is unfounded in this case, and which has been fueled by certain right-wing websites.

It seems really sad that such a proposal, generated from the hearts of civic-minded folks, can't get off the ground because of mindless opposition. I say mindless because it is based on distrust rather than fact. Why support this reactionary attitude?

I'd like to hear your thoughts, and to know when the commissioners will take action, if they do.

Thanks, Thea

[Robert M. Pyle]

Postscript to Commissioner Blair Brady from Bob Pyle

Blair, I appreciated your sharing your thoughts with us at Grange last Tuesday. But as I told you, I think your decision is one that honors ignorance.

As a P.S. to Thea's well-stated comment, with which I agree, I'd like to ask you to consider three additional comment/questions:

1) How did you judge "vast majority"--by sheer mouth-volume? By your own personal applause-meter? You took no poll that I am aware of. Your assessment of "vast majority" seems specious; can you defend it with numbers?

2) You told me at Grange that you think this issue is "minor" in importance, if I heard your right. In our parlous economic condition, how can you call Wahkiakum County's access to shared funds for appropriate community projects "minor?" Your weak appeasement of the screamers will strip us of that access, if joined by another commissioner.

3) How can your conscience allow you to vote against what you say you know to be right, in full knowledge (as you say) that your perceived constituency is mistaken? I know you say that you feel you were elected to serve your constituency's
views. But leaving aside the fact that you don't really know the views of most of them, (and as Thea says, most of the opposition was riled by folks outside your district, outside the county, outside the NHA!)isn't there a time when a public servant must follow his or her own best sense, even if it differs from some mouthy voters?

We have powerful examples of politicians going along with the loud crowd instead of respecting their own consciences: visit any military cemetery this Memorial Day if you need actual examples. Losing out on the NHA is not like launching a war that will later be regretted; but it is still an accommodation to mistaken frenzy, and thus not to be respected.

Rethink, please. And also re-read the original Grange-solicited letters above, by two of your most respected neighbors, Carlton Appelo and Mike Swanson, one a Democrat and one a Republican. I, and many others, feel you've gone wrong here.

Respectfully,
Bob Pyle (an actual constituent in your district)

[Poul Toftemark]

I tried to get my home in Seaview (1887) on the register as a historic home some years ago. To do that, severe restrictions would be put on the house and surrounding property--I opted not to be controlled by that. The NHA will establish another NGO "party" to make decisions and get salaried off this money. I feel the words used to belittle Comm. Bradys stance are distorted and only make this choice more fiery. I am one of those who do not feel that we should have to opt out, instead of others opting to accept. The whole country-world is under duress from the financial meltdown which is also affecting us here. I don't feel the NHA is the right direction.
Sincerely Poul Toftemark
An actual constituent in the district

[Chuck Wolfe]

The Columbia-Pacific National Area. Sounds great. But if the focus is on the Columbia River, why stop at Wahkiakum county? Why not have the NHA be defined as going from the mouth of the river upstream to the Canadian border, including a strip of land, say, 1/2 mile, along both banks. That type of heritage area is a logical grouping of cultural, economic, heritage, and historical land that tells a varied story over the last 200 years.

Put another way, what do the forests of Wahkiakum, Pacific, and Clatsop have to do with the historical significance of the Columbia river? Logging you say? Well, expand the Columbia River National Heritage Area to include all major rivers flowing into the Columbia that supported early logging operations. Deep River, Grays would certainly qualify, but the Snake River wouldn't.

Now, on to the Oregon coastal areas of Clatsop county, and the Long Beach peninsula. Again, not much relavance to the River, except at the mouth. But if you insist on including an expanded beach area, why stop at Clatsop and Pacific County? Why not go further up and down the coast.

The National Park Service recommends four critical steps prior to pursuing designation as a national heritage area. Ten criteria serve as guidelines to assess whether a region may qualify as a national heritage area. Here is their brief outline of those criteria and guidelines: http://www.nps.gov/history/heritageareas/REP/criteria.pdf

Finally, I would suggest that everyone review the National Park Service's webpage on becoming a National Heritage Area: http://www.nps.gov/history/heritageareas/become/index.htm

The bottom line is that the currently proposed Columbia-Pacific National Heritage Area seems a bit helter skelter reguarding the NPS guidelines!