CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE
February 9, 1966
Page 2629
WITH HERITAGE SO RICH: REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the American story is brief in the recorded history of man. But the American story is rich far beyond its years.
In less than 200 years, America has grown from a sparsely populated agricultural community of States to the most urbanized and technologically advanced nation in the history of the world.
During these 20 decades and before, American genius has created marvels of mortar and stone. We also have designed charming neighborhoods and streets, restful village greens, bustling marketplaces, and other sites to meet our needs.
In the years ahead, our growth will accelerate. In the next four decades alone, our expanding population and urbanization will require more construction than we have witnessed during our first 20 decades.
This means that much of what we have created to date is threatened by the thrust of bulldozers or the corrosion of neglect.
In many instances, efforts to preserve sites of architectural and historic value will be too late. Nearly half the 12,000 structures listed in the historic American buildings survey already have been destroyed.
America must move promptly and vigorously to protect the important legacies which remain. This we can achieve without blunting our progress. And this achievement will enrich our progress. With sensitive planning, the past and the future can live as neighbors and contribute jointly to the quality of our civilization.
We are a nation on the move. Twenty percent of our families change their home addresses each year. This mobility makes it even more important to save our landmarks. They lend stability to our lives. They are a point of orientation with which to establish values of time and place and belonging.
The Special Committee on Historic Preservation has recently completed a lengthy and thorough study of the preservation needs of our Nation. It has been my privilege to serve on the committee, an independent group sponsored by the U.S. Conference of Mayors.
The findings and recommendations of the committee have been published recently in a book entitled, "With Heritage So Rich." This book was made possible by a grant from the Ford Foundation.
I urge my colleagues to read this book. It is a convincing document on the need for a greatly accelerated effort by all levels of government and by private groups to preserve the legacies of our earlier days.
In the months ahead, I will be introducing legislation to carry out the recommendations of the special committee. Companion legislation will be introduced in the House by Representative WILLIAM B. WIDNALL, of New Jersey, also a committee member.
Mrs. Lyndon B. Johnson graciously wrote the foreword to the book. In part she said:
We must preserve and we must preserve wisely. As the report emphasizes, in its best sense, preservation does not merely mean the setting aside of thousands of buildings as museum pieces. It means retaining the culturally valuable structures as useful objects – a home in which human beings live, a building in the service of some commercial or community purpose. Such preservation insures structural integrity, relates the preserved object to the life of the people around it, and not least, it makes preservation a source of positive financial gain rather than another expense.
The legislation Congressman WIDNALL and I will introduce will be designed to achieve this kind of preservation.
I ask for unanimous consent that Mrs. Johnson’s foreword to "With Heritage So Rich," the book’s preface, written by former Congressman Albert Rains, chairman of the special committee, and Laurance G. Henderson, director of the special committee, and the findings and recommendations of the special committee be inserted in the RECORD at this time.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows
FOREWORD
(By Mrs. Lyndon B. Johnson)
For 2 years I have had the privilege of living in one of the great historic homes of the United States. Dally the lives of the President, and of my whole family have been affected by tangible mementoes of earlier Chief Executives and their families. The experience has driven home to me the truth that the buildings which express our national heritage are not simply interesting. They give a sense of continuity and of heightened reality to our thinking about the whole meaning of the American past.
I was dismayed to learn from reading this report that almost half of the 12,000 structures listed in the Historic American Buildings Survey of the National Park Service have already been destroyed. This is a serious loss and it underlies the necessity for prompt action if we are not to shirk our duty to the future.
We must preserve and we must preserve wisely. As the report emphasizes, in its best sense, preservation does not mean merely the setting aside of thousands of buildings as museum pieces.It means retaining the culturally valuable structures as useful objects -- a home in which human beings live, a building in the service of some commercial or community purpose. Such preservation insures structural integrity, relates the preserved object to the life of the people around it, and not least, it makes preservation a source of positive financial gain rather than another expense.
In the beautification work in which many of us are now engaged, we try to carry on our activities within the sturdy American tradition which seeks the beautiful which is also useful. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson may have disagreed politically. They emphatically agreed, however, that a garden was one of the most rational of pursuits because, while throwing a glow of color and charm on everything around it, it also provided food for the body and a place of repose and reflection for the mind. May this tradition of usefulness guide all our beautification work, including that specific important form of beautification, the retention and rehabilitation of our buildings of special historic significance.
I hope that many Americans will read this thoughtful and spirited volume and consider seriously what they can do to help bring its message to fulfillment. The report points out that a number of European countries have long since undertaken extensive programs for protecting the national heritage in highly practical ways. We, blessed with so exciting and meaningful a heritage, should hardly be less active.
PREFACE
(By Albert Rains, chairman, and Laurance G. Henderson, director)
On September 15, 1687, a Venetian bomb fell on a Turkish powder keg and blew the Parthenon to pieces. The Venetians who did the bombarding and the Turks who used the Parthenon for a powder magazine did not intend its destruction. But the act of war was decisively final. An edifice which had stood for over 2,000 years as one of the supreme works of Athenian culture lay in ruins.
We do not use bombs and powder kegs to destroy irreplaceable structures related to the story of America’s civilization. We use the corrosion of neglect or the thrust of bulldozers. The result is the same as in the case of the Parthenon. Places where great American voices were heard, or where great acts of valor were performed, are lost. Connections between successive generations of Americans concretely linking their ways of life are broken by demolition. Sources of memory cease to exist.
Why, then, are we surprised when surveys tell us that many Americans, young and old, lack even a rudimentary knowledge of the national past? We ourselves create the blank spaces by doing nothing when the physical signs of our previous national life are removed from our midst.
The Special Committee on Historic Preservation was formed to explore this harsh reality, and to suggest ways of dealing with it.
Members of the committee have served or continue to serve in various posts at all levels of government, but is a privately organized body disinterested in all but its objectives in the realm of knowledge.
We on the committee have wanted to know what is happening in the field of historic preservation; the present trends in saving what can be saved, and the losses from destroying what deserves to be saved. We have tried to discover what we must do to rescue from certain destruction what remains of our legacy from the past, and how best to do that rescue work.
We have sought advice in this matter from sources which command respect. We have consulted with members of the executive branch whose various programs -- whether in the field of housing, urban renewal, road construction, national parks, and the like have a direct bearing on historic preservation. We have traveled extensively abroad to consult with Europeans and to draw from their experiences such knowledge as can be applied to the American case. We have had the benefit of help rendered by an expert technical staff. We are grateful to all these, and to the Ford Foundation and a generous anonymous donor whose grants of funds made the whole of this project possible.
While the heads of all the Federal departments and agencies whose programs affect historic preservation served as ex officio members of the committee, the committee itself assumes sole and full responsibility for what appears in this report. Much research, many trips, long debates, and above all, an ardent love of country, have gone into its preparation and publication. For the committee is convinced that an action program for historic preservation cannot be a piecemeal affair or a series of straitjackets. It must be both comprehensive and flexible. It must be designed to allow each interested private and public party to play a role commensurate with his own rights, duties, and resources.
The report, therefore, suggests in broad terms certain practical avenues of approach to the problem of conserving places and objects of value in our individual cornmunitiesand in the Nation as a whole. We have not attempted to write the details of any law or laws which are necessary if a program of historic preservation is to attain the object for which it is framed. City councils, State legislatures and the Congress of the United States are and must be the source of. the necessary laws. Each of these legislative bodies, in the light of its own best judgment and within the sphere of its own jurisdiction, has an essential part of its own to play in constructing a legal foundation for undertakings in historic preservation.
The committee, on its own part, hopes that the body of fact it has assembled and the guidelines for action it has set forth, will materially assist our different legislative organs in the discharge of lawmaking functions they alone can perform. The case is urgent. May the legislative response be both thoughtful and resolute.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
PART I -- INTRODUCTION
In formulating its findings and recommendations, the Special Committee on Historic Preservation has attempted to develop a program to encourage Federal, State and local government, and private agencies and individuals to preserve communities, areas, structures, sites and objects significant to architectural, cultural, social, economic, political and military history and which contribute to the quality and meaning of American life.
In pursuit of this objective, the committee, which includes representatives of all levels of government and the agencies involved, has studied problems and programs related to historic preservation in the United States and in Europe. At the request of the committee, a number of Federal agencies and the National Trust for Historic Preservation have supplied studies, reports, documents and comments on numerous historic preservation activities and accomplishments.
The committee has examined contemporary European practices in historic preservation, restoration and reconstruction. It has obtained from authoritative sources in England, France, Holland, Germany, Scandinavia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Austria, and Italy legal and administrative information which could be used. to evaluate European experience in relation to American needs and proposals for improving and developing historic preservation programs in the United States.
It is clear to the committee that our own needs and the evidence of experience in Europe, where historic preservation is a major responsibility of government, suggest an expansion and development of our own programs, placing greater emphasis on Government support of private efforts in historic preservation.
The committee has been aided in its work by consultants and by the contributors whose work appears in the various chapters and photographic sections of "With Heritage So Rich."
The committee is indebted to many public officials and private citizens, in the United States and Europe, who have provided information and ideas for this study. We hope this material and our findings and recommendations will assist the growing interest in and concern with historic preservation throughout the United States.
One of the exciting conditions which has encouraged the committee to make its recommendations is the attitude of public officials and private individuals toward historic preservation. What has been a groundswell is becoming a great wave of interest and support.
This growing interest is part of an evolutionary process which began a century or more ago with the first movements to preserve important historic sites and structures. The historical material provided this committee shows that this process has involved many dedicated public servants, private individuals and groups, scholars and experts.
In accordance with this increasing desire to make historic preservation a living part of our community life and development, the committee recommends certain new programs described in this report. Along with enlargement and enhancement of existing programs, they will broaden and deepen the scope of national historic preservation activity.
Findings
If it can be said that there is a new awakening of interest in the preservation of our cultural and architectural heritage, it must be added that never was the need for it greater.
Since World War II, a great wave of urbanization has been sweeping across the Nation. And such is the rate of growth that in the next 40 years the United States will have to build more homes, more schools, more stores, more factories, more public facilities of all kinds than in the entire previous history of the country.
Out of the turbulence of building, tearing down, and rebuilding the face of America, more and more Americans have come to realize that as the future replaces the past, it destroys much of the physical evidence of the past.
The current pace of preservation effort is not enough. It is as though the preservation movement were trying to travel up a down escalator. The time has come for bold, new measures and a national plan of action to insure that we, our children, and future generations may have a genuine opportunity to appreciate and to enjoy our rich heritage.
The United States, with a short history and an emphasis on its economic growth, has left historic preservation primarily to private interests and efforts. In the older, history conscious countries of Europe, preservation leadership has been provided primarily by government.
One of the acute shortages in the field of historic preservation is that of specially trained architects and other technicians and trained preservationists. These shortages must be remedied if the objectives outlined in this report areto be met in time and the quality of preservation activity is to be at the high level we envisage. A program of scholarships and grants-in-aid for studies is a pressing need.
Our Nation began with migrations, grew with migrations, and remains a nation of people on the move. Few of us have had close ties with the land and with places and buildings. The natural result in too many cases has been a neglect of starting points and an indifference to our cultural trail of buildings and places. This is what we are trying to correct.
As is apparent from a study of various laws and programs, governmental concern for historic preservation in the United States has been limited at all levels, with some notable exceptions.
At the Federal level, the laws now in effect which mention preservation directly include the Antiquities Act of1906, written to protect historic monuments on Government property; an act establishing the National Park Service in 1916; the Historic Sites Act of 1935, which defines the national policy of preservation for public use; the act of 1949, which established and defined the powers of the National Trust for Historic Preservation; and the Housing Acts of 1961 and 1965 which gave to the Department of Housing and Urban Development powers to use Federal funds to acquire open space and to move historic structures in urban renewal areas.
The following is a summary of the various Federal programs which affect historic preservation.
Department of the Interior
The Department of the Interior has been responsible for a wide range of historic preservation activities for many years. It has served as custodian of prehistoric Indian villages in the Southwest, of the battlefields and fortifications of our military history, of historic buildings and places, of the evidence of our pioneers and of many other examples of the history of our social and cultural growth. The National Park Service, which is the agency within the Department responsible for this vast program, has gained worldwide renown for the excellence of its work and the service it renders to the American people and our many visitors.
The National Park Service also conducts the national survey of historic sites and buildings, which, with the help of State and local authorities, has identified thousands of historical properties throughout the United States. The Secretary of the Interior has classified 600 such properties as registered national historic landmarks. Recently, the survey has begun to identify nationally important historic districts such as Brooklyn Heights, N.Y. and Annapolis, Md. Within the past 2 years, 13 such areas have been classified by the Secretary of the Interior as registered national historic landmarks. As the survey continues, additional landmarks and districts are studied and recognized.
Another major program, the historic American buildings survey, is of importance to the Nation as a whole and to every State and community. The survey goes beyond the study of historic sites and major historical buildings to include all examples of American architecture worthy of public concern and protection. The invaluable records of the survey are available at the Library of Congress, and they have been indispensible aids to numbers of preservation projects. The Department of the Interior will issue a trial publication of some of the drawings and photographs for a single State -- Wisconsin – in 1966, but funds are not at present available for further publication. Such publication is intended to serve the dual function of a historical presentation and a source book for architects.
Nearly half the buildings recorded in detail in the past 30 years have already been razed or destroyed by mutilation. Yet the staff of the Historic American Buildings Survey estimates that no fewer than 90,000 additional buildings should be inventoried, and that at least 18,000 of these are of such exceptional merit they should also be recorded in photographs and measured drawings. Approximately 3,000 of the 90,000 buildings are situated on Federal lands and 25,000 more, located in communities throughout America, may be affected in one way or another by current Federal programs and projects during the second half of the 1960s. At the current rate of progress on this survey, it would take 75 years to accomplish its work.
The National Park Service, in cooperation with the Smithsonian Institution, coordinates the interagency archeological salvage program, involving seven Federal and many State and local agencies. This program was initiated 20 years ago to rescue irreplaceable archeological sites destined to be permanently lost through flooding in the course of dam and reservoir construction.
The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation is authorized to provide various forms of financial assistance for historic preservation but at present it lacks adequate funds.
Historic preservation projects of the Department of the Interior and State and local agencies have been supported by the Neighborhood Youth Corps, administered by the Department of Labor under the Economic Opportunity Act, and by funds from the Area Redevelopment Administration, now the Economic Development Administration in the Department of Commerce.
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Many historic buildings and areas are in the hearts of our cities. The new Department of Housing and Urban Development administers the many activities of the former Housing and Home. Finance Agency. These include, among others, Federal assistance for renewal of our cities, for planning and development programs of States, counties, regions and cities, for open space lands and for limited historic preservation assistance.
Under the urban renewal, local planning assistance and open space land programs the Department has provided funds for planning, surveying, public facilities, open space and property acquisition for historic preservation. The local planning assistance (sec. 701) grants and demonstration (sec. 314) grants have been used by a number of communities in conducting surveys of historical assets and preservation potential as part of the process of preparing local comprehensive plans and community renewal programs. To date, 119 communities have utilized funds in one or more of these categories as a part of their broad preservation and renewal programs.
All of these community development programs have important roles in the preservation field and are being used to help achieve local goals for historic preservation. Under current housing and urban development legislation, however, the cost of restoration and continued maintenance must be borne by a local public or private agency. No grant-in-aid or loan funds are available for the specific purpose of restoration.
Federal loan and grant-in-aid funds available for rehabilitation of historic buildings cannot be used for more than making the building habitable and marketable. Any historic design elements which do not relate to structural safety and economic usefulness are not eligible for such public funds.
Improvements needed in the Department’s programs include the addition of historic sites and buildings, both within and outside the project area, to the list of acceptable local non-cash contributions to renewal costs, and an enlargement of assistance programs to include loans for acquisition and rehabilitation of historic structures and districts.
General Services Administration
The General Services Administration is the management agency for federally owned buildings and sites. It controls a wide variety of major buildings and areas, many of them dating from the founding of the country, including courthouses, post offices, fortifications, army camps, customs houses, and every conceivable kind of structure which Federal programs have required in the course of the last 175 years. The agency is responsible for safeguarding and salvaging and disposing of the huge inventory of surplus Federal property, including public buildings, some of which have historic significance.
The General Services Administration and cooperating Federal agencies, particularly the Department of Interior, have developed agreements for identifying the historical or other significance of sites and structures under Federal management. They are also seeking means to develop workable solutions to the complex problems arising from the changing uses of such structures, and the changing patterns of Government administration. The General Services Administration has assisted in the admirable efforts to preserve and restore such structures as the old State, War, and Navy Building and the Pension Office Building in Washington, D.C. among others.
Department of Commerce
The Bureau of Public Roads in the Department of Commerce, which administers the Federal highway program, has developed rules and guidelines for highway projects in the interests of historic preservation, archeology and paleontology. In this connection, a circular memorandum issued May 25, 1964 by the Bureau, concerning outdoor recreation and historic resources, stated:
"To assure that full consideration is given to the overall interests of the public in both the Federal aid highway program and programs for the protection or improvement of public recreational resources (such as but not necessarily limited to public parks, playgrounds, forests, open space, game sanctuaries, and the like) and historical resources, it will in the future be required that the plans, specifications and estimates (PS & E) for each Federal aid highway project which affects natural or manmade resources devoted to, or included in realistic plans for, public recreational or historical preservation purposes by a public authority having the official responsibility therefor, contain a statement that the State highway department did afford to such appropriate public authority ample opportunity at the earliest practicable time to review the highway department’s planning for the proposed highway location and construction. The opportunity for such a review, as a minimum, would consist of the initiation by the highway department of a direct contact between that department and the appropriate public authority preferably during the preliminary stages of plan development for the highway. In all cases these contacts shall have been made prior to the time at which the public hearing is advertised. If the officials of the appropriate public authority do not agree with the planning of the State highway department, their reason for nonconcurrence shall be included with the PS & E documents, and the State highway department shall show that the suggestions of the above referenced public officials have been examined and the plans as submitted to Public Roads provide the best possible solution in the judgment of the highway department."
Intergovernmental Liaison
There have been some notable Federal accomplishments in historic preservation. However, the present disposition of Federal properties, the official designation of historic buildings and sites, the development of urban renewal programs, the planning of details of the federally aided highway system and the development of national defense facilities and other Federal operations, responsibilities and programs involve a series of complex activities. Each of these responsibilities and activities is the result of a separate congressional authorization. Each is separately administered. Jurisdictional disputes in the field of historic conservation have been inevitable. Such disputes will occur again and again and provisions for their early resolution must be an important part of national programs for historic preservation.
There is no present administrative mechanism or appropriate method of liaison between Federal agencies or between State and local preservation programs and the various Federal agencies. The Committee on Historic Preservation recommends establishment of an Advisory Council on Historic Preservation which will adequately represent paramount interests at all levels of government and the private sector. Such a council could reduce conflicts and improve historic preservation liaison and coordination.
Similar problems of coordination affect State and local governments. Most States and many localities can lay claim to historic preservation programs, but in too many cases, even where State and local law is sufficient and community interest is high, preservation efforts have been hobbled by the lack of appropriation of public funds for preservation -- which is crucial since private property may not be acquired without fair compensation.
It is one thing to know that a threatened building is of historic or architectural importance. It is another to find the money to stave off the bulldozer and to establish and maintain an appropriate and living use for the property.
Moreover, as at the Federal level, broad planning and coordination of public, State and local preservation programs are lacking.
Even in the private field, which so far has provided most of the leadership for preservation in this country, the efforts, and especially the financial outlay by private philanthropy, have been insufficient.
The focal point of private endeavor has been the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which has been engaged in a notable but limited program of education, dissemination of information, and the acquisition and maintenance of a number of historic properties. However, the largest historic property holders outside the Federal Government are the corporations holding and managing historic communities, such as Williamsburg, Va., Sturbridge Village, Mass., and Old Salem, N.C. The Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities, with 57 historic structures, is probably the largest holder of scattered properties.
But sufficient funds are not available for the development and staffing of the National Trust’s programs, for emergency assistance to others facing preservation crises, or for the acquisition and support by the trust of additional properties of historic and cultural importance.
While there is a growing national interest in historic preservation, it is by no means evenly distributed. In cities we find the widest discrepancies in interest and accomplishment. In cities such as New Orleans, Boston, Charleston, S.C., San Antonio, Santa Barbara, Natchez, Winston-Salem, N.C., Bethlehem, Pa., and Providence, R.I., there has been excellent and growing support by both the business community and local government. And there are others. However, there is a longer list of cities and small towns and villages where either indifference reigns or there is outright hostility. In the latter case, preservation frequently loses the battle to stronger forces. Curiously, business leaders often ignore the economic benefits of prestige values and tourist dollars.
International Cooperation
There is a growing interest in programs of international cooperation for historic preservation sponsored by the United Nations’ Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. These include the Rome International Center for the Study of the Preservation and the Restoration of Cultural Property and the newly established International Council on Monuments and Sites. The International Relations Committee of the National Trust and the Committee on Historic Preservation of the American Institute of Architects have been recommending support of these programs for several years and also participated in the first Inter-American Historic Preservation Conference at St. Augustine, Fla., in June 1965.
It is important for Americans to share research and education programs and to participate in international meetings on historic preservation. We have much to learn and much to contribute. Support for such conferences, at home and abroad, will involve the cooperation of the Department of State which has authority to allocate funds for educational purposes.
Technical help, such as the Rome center can provide, is only part of the mutual education process. There must be a genuine interchange of results of research, of ideas, approaches and philosophy and it is essential that our publications, exhibitions, motion pictures and displays at international gatherings be of high quality. This suggests that consideration of international cooperation be given when the Federal Government appropriates finds for an expanded historic preservation program.
Conclusions to the Findings
The pace of urbanization is accelerating and the threat to our environmental heritage is mounting; it will take more than the sounding of periodic alarms to stem the tide.
The United States is a nation and a people on the move. It is in an era of mobility and change. Every year 20 percent of the population moves from its place of residence. The result is a feeling of rootlessness combined with a longing for those landmarks of the past which give us a sense of stability and belonging.
If the preservation movement is to be successful, it must go beyond saving bricks and mortar. It must go beyond saving occasional historic houses and opening museums. It must be more than a cult of antiquarians. It must do more than revere a few precious national shrines. It must attempt to give a sense of orientation to our society, using structures and objects of the past to establish values of time and place.
This means a reorientation of outlook and effort in several ways.
First, the preservation movement must recognize the importance of architecture, design, and esthetics as well as historic and cultural values. Those who treasure a building for its pleasing appearance or local sentiment do not find it less important because it lacks proper historic credentials.
Second, the new preservation must look beyond the individual building and individual landmark and concern itself with the historic and architecturally valued areas and districts which contain a special meaning for the community. A historic neighborhood, a fine old street of houses, a village green, a colorful marketplace, a courthouse square, an esthetic quality of the town scape -- all must fall within the concern of the preservation movement. It makes little sense to fight for the preservation of a historic house set between two service stations, and at the same time to ignore an entire area of special charm or importance in the community which is being nibbled away by incompatible uses or slow decay.
Third, if the effort to preserve historic and architecturally significant areas as well as individual buildings is to succeed, intensive thought and study must be given to economic conditions and tax policies which will affect our efforts to preserve such areas as living parts of the community.
In sum, if we wish to have a future with greater meaning, we must concern ourselves not only with the historic highlights, but we must be concerned with the total heritage of the Nation and all that is worth preserving from our past as a living part of the present.
PART II -- RECOMMENDATIONS
Throughout this report the term "historic preservation" has been used to include the protection, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction of communities, areas, structures, sites, and objects having historic, architectural, social, or cultural significance.
To carry out the goals of historic preservation, a comprehensive national plan of action is imperative. Such a plan will encourage, improve, and reinforce public and private leadership.
Many individuals and private organizations have worked long and hard to preserve the physical evidences of our heritage which we are privileged to enjoy today. Public agencies have also made a substantial contribution. But to meet the current crisis and to accelerate the pace of historic preservation we need to increase the amount of Government support and joint public and private efforts.
Our traditions differ from those of European countries, but we have much to learn from European experience. The weight which European governments give to historic preservation has resulted in successful programs for saving, restoring, and reconstructing many different types of buildings for viable uses. There is an excellent object lesson in the European achievement in maintaining historic buildings and areas as living parts of communities and as successful economic ventures.
A national plan of action for historic preservation should. include the following elements
1. A comprehensive statement of national policy to guide the activities and programs of all Federal agencies.
2. The establishment of an Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to provide leadership and guidance for the direction of interagency actions and to provide liaison with State and local governments, public and private groups, and the general public.
3. A greatly expanded national register program to inventory and to catalog communities, areas, structures, sites, and objects; a Federal program of assistance to States and localities for companion programs; and a strong Federal public information program based on the material in the register.
4. Added authority and sufficient funds for Federal acquisition of threatened buildings and sites of national historic importance, and expansion of the urban renewal program to permit local non-cash contributions to include acquisition of historic buildings on the national register, both within and outside the project area.
5. Provision for Federal loans and grants and other financial aid to facilities and expansion of State and local programs of historic preservation.
6. Federal financial aid to and through the National Trust for Historic Preservation to assist private interest and activity in the preservation field, for educational purposes and for direct assistance to private property holders.
Detailed recommendations are as follows:
Federal
1. Enact legislation to (a) affirm a strong national historic preservation policy, recognizing its enlarged dimensions, (b) coordinate and consolidate existing historic preservation programs, (c) authorize annual appropriations for the Department of the Interior to acquire historic structures and sites of major national importance, (d) consolidate the Federal inventory and survey programs in a national register and to authorize additional appropriations for the National park Service to administer this register, (e) authorize grants to State and local governments to carry out similar inventory and survey programs in coordination with the National Park Service.
2. Enact legislation authorizing preparation, administration, publication, and distribution by the National Park Service of a national register, in accordance with carefully prepared standards and criteria of structures and sites, whether publicly or privately owned, of national importance because of historic, architectural, archeological, or other cultural values. Such a register should include several categories of buildings: The first category should include our prime national monuments and Congress should pass legislation which would protect them from demolition, mutilation, or alteration without approval of the advisory body which this committee proposes.
This group would include structures such as the Capitol, the White House, Mount Vernon, and Monticello. Many of the buildings are at present in public hands and most of those in private ownership are in no danger. But there should be an orderly evaluation of the structures belonging in this small class which should be protected with every legal safeguard.
A second category of buildings should include structures of lesser rank which have merit and should be eligible for the broad range of assistance programs proposed in this report. Provision should be made for the Government to have the right of first refusal should the owner decide to sell or demolish the structure.
A third category should include those structures of local concern whose preservation should be a matter of local decision and initiative.
3. Establish an adequately staffed Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, with membership representing the major Federal departments and agencies involved in preservation matters, as well as State and local governments and public and private organizations interested in historic preservation and urban development. The functions of such a council should include (a) advising the President and the Congress on historic preservation as it affects the national welfare and providing inspiration and leadership for the implementation of the national policy; (b) the development of policies, guidelines, and studies for the review and resolution of conflicts between different Federal and federally aided programs affecting historic preservation; (c) the encouragement, in cooperation with appropriate private organizations, of public interest and participation in historic preservation; (d) supporting the national register as an instrument of national historic preservation policy and insuring the coordination of the register with activities of other agencies of Government; (e) making; and publishing studies in such areas as adequacy of legislative and administrative statutes and regulations pertaining to preservation activities of State and local governments, and effects of tax policies at all levels of government on historic preservation, and (f) preparation of guidelines for assistance of State and local governments in drafting preservation legislation.
4. Provide by Internal Revenue Code amendment or clarify by regulation or published ruling the status of (a) historic preservation as a public, exempt charitable activity, deductibility of gifts of historic easements or restrictive covenants to governmental units or exempt organizations engaged in preservation, and permissibility of revenue producing adaptive or incidental uses; (b) acceptance of a registered historic property for conveyance to the national trust in lieu of an equivalent estate tax payment; (c) income tax deductibility to private owners of registered historic properties for preservation and restoration expenditures within appropriate limitations;(d) recognition of conveyances of registered historic properties to governmental units or exempt preservation organizations as present gifts, despite reserved life interests, provided the property is open to the public on a reasonable basis.
5. Make mandatory a preliminary review of the location and status of historic sites and buildings in relevant areas prior to the undertaking of Federal or federally aided programs or projects affecting plans for physical development. Where the review produces evidence of the existence of historic sites and buildings and that surveys made in accordance with the standards of the national registry are lacking, make mandatory a historic survey prepared in accordance with such standards. Where necessary, provide funds for the preparation of such surveys through the Department of the Interior, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Commerce, or other concerned Federal agencies. Plans prepared for such development projects must take all such historic surveys into consideration, and must show evidence thereof.
6. Authorize the use of Federal matching grants for acquisition by an appropriate public agency of historic structures, rehabilitation loans and grants for restoration of such structures, and recognition of public expenditures for such acquisitions as eligible non-cash contributions under urban renewal programs. Under the urban renewal program, communities must match the Federal grants with local contributions. In most cases, communities must put up $1 for every $2 of Federal aid, although in the case of cities under 50,000 and cities in economically distressed areas, the formula is $1 for every $3 of Federal assistance. However, the community has the option to make in lieu of cash, a non-cash contribution of a community benefit such as a school or sewer and water services within the project area. A little less than two-thirds of these local matching contributions are in this form. Under the 1965 Housing Act, $2.9 billion of Federal grants are authorized which will be matched by between $966 million and .$145 billion of local matching contributions. Expansion of eligible non-cash contributions to include acquisition of historic structures on the national register both within and outside the project area would enable local communities to play a far more effective role in preservation.
7. Establish new and liberalized loan programs for private groups or individuals for acquisition and rehabilitation of historic structures and districts.
8. Enactment of a scholarship and training program for architects and technicians in the field of historic preservation, similar to the program enacted by Congress in 1964 for the field of housing and urban planning. An adequate program is of vital importance to the effective implementation of the other proposals of the committee.
STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS (COUNTY, TOWN, AND MUNICIPAL)
1. State: Enact legislation establishing an appropriate State agency, and enabling and encouraging local communities to establish historic preservation districts and to acquire through eminent domain (where necessary) historic structures and sites and preservation easements and restrictive covenants, and providing special property tax treatment for historic structures and preservation and restoration expenditures.
2. State: Establish an organizational structure capable of (a) providing leadership, information, standards and criteria, technical and financial assistance to local communities for preservation purposes, (b) reviewing and coordinating the programs and projects of State agencies to avoid to the maximum extent conflicts with preservation objectives, (c) carrying out appropriate preservation programs, plans and studies, and (d) establishing and maintaining an official State
register coordinated with the national register.
3. State: Enact legislation clarifying and encouraging the use of preservation easements and restrictive covenants for the benefit of governmental units and preservation organizations, and income tax deduction for such gifts and for preservation and restoration expenditures.
4. State: By statute or regulation, assure exemption from inheritance taxes for gifts of historic property to governmental units, the national trust and other preservation organizations, and income tax deduction for such gifts and for preservation and restoration expenditures.
5. State and local: Where authorized, require by legislation and appropriate notice procedures a waiting period before demolition or significant alteration of registered historic structures, in order to provide time for acceptable alternatives and new use solutions to be worked out.
6. Local: Undertake a thorough and systematic survey of historic and architecturally important buildings and areas within the community, in coordination with the national register and the State register.
7. Local: Make a comprehensive study of all available legal tools for preservation purposes, including historic district zoning and formation of architectural and historic review boards. Such studies should relate to official general plans of the locality and be incorporated in community renewal programs.
8. Local: Provide an annual budget for expenditures to preserve and maintain those historic and architectural structures and places of importance to the community.
9. The Congress should strengthen and broaden. the District of Columbia historic preservation legislation.
General
1. Historic. and cultural sites, structures, and objects acquired with the use of Federal funds and not retained by the acquiring department or agency, or not otherwise directly disposed of, should be transferable under the surplus property disposal program to the national trust in fee simple. The national trust should be empowered to lodge operational responsibility for such property with local preservation groups wherever possible.
2. In order that representatives of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Commerce, the General Services Administration, and other appropriate agencies may be allowed to sit with the board of trustees, the national trust charter should be amended to provide that the trustees, at their discretion, be allowed to appoint additional ex officio trustees from among heads of Federal departments and agencies.
3. Federal authorization should be provided for matching grants to the national trust on a two-thirds Federal/one-third national trust formula for the following purposes (a) to provide educational and clearinghouse services and financial assistance to individuals and organizations in preservation and related fields; (b) to prepare information and educational publications, conduct meetings and conferences, finance scholarships, develop library resources, provide technical consultation and establish award programs; (c) to acquire, restore, and maintain registered structures of national historic or architectural importance.
4. To assure that public funds for private historic preservation are used only for authentic needs and in accordance with established criteria, such funds should be transmitted to non-governmental organizations and private individuals only with the approval of an appropriate authority.
5. Private corporations, trade associations, and labor organizations should be encouraged to identify and preserve the locations, structures and objects on which the development of their enterprise or craft has been based.
6. The great national philanthropic foundations should be urged to stimulate and assist programs for the training of architects, landscape architects, engineers, historians, designers and decorators in careers in historic preservation. In addition, they are urged to assist historic preservation research projects, publications, and conference and communication media programs.
International Cooperation.
The United States should provide financial support to the UNESCO historic preservation programs, including the Rome center, and the International Council on Monuments and Sites. In addition, Federal funds should be used to support international conferences and scholarships and fellowships for international study of historic preservation.