(Excerpts)
- May, 1996To: The Hon. Mr. Rod Grams Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Rod Grams, Our organization strongly opposes enactment of the National Heritage Act, S. 1110. We believe that S. 1110 poses a threat to private property rights, improperly injects the federal government into matters of land use control and management that should be solely the concern of the State and local governments, and creates a costly new federal program at a time when the federal treasury is empty. Although marginally better than a similar bill which passed the House in the 103rd Congress (HR 5044), S.1110 is still fatally flawed in several respects. First, it would involve the National Park Service in local land use planning decisions over vast areas of land, most of it privately owned, all across the country. Given the National Park Service's long record of abuses against local communities and private property owners, we are amazed that this bill is being considered at all. Second S. 1110 would create a local board or commission to manage each designated National Heritage Area. These "management entities" would not be directly accountable to elected officials at any level of government. They would be free to interfere in any and all local zoning and land use decisions, even in cases involving property entirely outside the boundaries of the heritage area. Third, given these concerns, S. 1110 provides inadequate protections for private property rights. When the House considered HR 5044 in Oct. 1994, Rep. Billy Tauzin offered an amendment requiring that no private property be included in a heritage area designation without the owner's agreement. this amendment was defeated by a weaker Rahall amendment, which allows private property to be excluded only if the local government requests it. Unfortunately, HR 1280 incorporates the weaker Rahall amendment language rather than the language offered by Rep. Tauzin. Fourth, S.1110 would authorize $10 million in federal spending annually for 17 years for technical assistance and grants to non-profit organizations and State and local governments. America's taxpayers cannot afford $170 million, especially at a time when there is not enough money to manage and protect our existing National Park System. Nor is it prudent to authorize an untried program for 17 years. Although our concerns can be addressed to some extent by amending S. 1110 to include protections for the rights of private property owners, we would still be opposed to the creation of a National Heritage Areas program. The reason is that no matter how innocuous the program is made to seem, it is but the camel's nose under the tent. The leading proponents of a National Heritage Areas program have made little secret of the fact that they do not consider passage of S. 1110 their goal, but just the first step towards their goal. As the chair of the National Coalition for Heritage Areas has written, "In general, it appears that if we are to see federal legislation addressing heritage areas in this Congress, we must be prepared to accept a shortened step along the pathway many of us envision. In the best of all possible worlds, perhaps someday we will see a combination of what has been laid out in other 'national heritage corridor' legislation and ideas for linking other federal agency programs to the basic foundation of a designation program". The agenda lightly sketched in this quotation is to create piecemeal a system of federal land-use controls. A National Heritage Areas Program is but one part of that system. By passing S. 1110, the Congress would be federally funding and sanctioning a new branch of the preservation lobby, which can be expected to agitate ceaselessly for more federal money, more power, and fewer limitations. We do not need another federal program that interferes in State and local government affairs and threatens private property rights. We urge you to oppose passage of the National Heritage Areas Act. Sincerely, Dzav Legislative Director for the Minnesota Landowner's Rights Association (MLRA)