INPCRP-L Archives

Archiver > INPCRP > 2003-12 > 1072938095


From: "Rich Green" <>
Subject: Re: [INPCRP] Re: Fw: cemetery protection -- Indiana legislation
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 01:22:45 -0500


INPCRP Listers:

Let me start off by wishing everyone a Happy New Year! I'd also like to acknowledge and remind everyone that we here all have a keen interest in Indiana's pioneer heritage, and in particular the preservation of her early cemeteries and other important cultural resources. I think we should bear this in mind as arguments over controversial topics like this one ensue.

With that said and having read Mrs. Munson's explanations, I beg to differ with some of her contentions and indeed find some of them objectionable. I'll get right to the point.

Mrs. Munson said:

Indiana is widely recognized as having a very good state historic
preservation law, and one that has actually been a model for other states.
But ironically, because of the definition of artifacts, it protects only
prehistoric and pre-statehood historic archaeological sites. It excludes
the archaeological sites (or below-ground components of historic
structures) of the Pioneer and early industrial era. Hence, the need for
expanded legal protection.

At the federal level, and in most other states, the 100-year threshold is
the age that applies. In addition to expanding protection to Pioneer
sites, changing Indiana's definition would help eliminate confusion about
what requirements apply on federal lands within state boundaries.

I would ask that Mrs. Munson offer evidence in support of this statement. I would argue that, at the federal level, the 100-year designation pertains to federal lands. If it were meant for all land within the borders of the U.S., then another state law with the same date would simply be redundant.

In the statement including "most other states", which incidentally have not been identified here, I would suggest that if there is a 100-year threshold in place, it is written and intended for regulation of state holdings and is not meant for or has ever been enforced on privately held property in any other state.

In Indiana, our existing historic preservation statute pertains to all land within Indiana including private property. Please tell us where else this exists? In which other states have laws like Indiana's been passed? Since the proposed legislative amendments would immediately impact all Indiana landowners, it follows then that this must be well conceived by Indiana legislators and designed to be fair to all Hoosiers. If this truly has been done in other states as has been suggested, then a model exists that can be carefully examined by our elected officials. To take this so lightly as to just tack it onto legislation designed to protect cemeteries doesn't seem very intelligent or smells of some ulterior agenda.

I think it may also be critically important to determine exactly what a pioneer and or industrial site really is. By Munson's proposed standard, Indiana would commit the vast resources of the DHPA, and it's 2004 budget, (sarcasm intended) to determining, for example, the differences between the remains of a 1904 "pioneer" farmstead or factory debris site, with one from say 1908? Or 1914? A bit like picking fly shit out of pepper I think. This is just one possible example (I can think of many more) that could realistically result from reaching too far with too few resources. Whether anyone wants to admit it or not, our State has not recently provided the kind of funding an agency like the DHPA needs to function at it's best. While Mrs. Munson glosses over this a bit in her testimony, there are others on this list who have found it frustrating to work with an agency that is understaffed and under funded.

If not the DHPA, then who will make the myriad of 20th century historic and archaeological determinations with regard to the impedance of development on private property next year? The universities? Private archaeological contractors? Anyone with the appropriate education and who passes muster with the State? All of the above? And, what will be the financial costs for such interpretations and determinations? Who will pay for this? Maybe Mrs. Munson should try to get Uncle Indiana to tax us all more first so we don't unwittingly agree to an unfunded mandate?

And since I've mentioned the subject to farming, how will the new date impact farmers? Literally hundreds of farmers could be in violation of this statute as they level grandpas unsafe and dilapidated early 20th century farm house and barn or plow through the remains of farm structures (and artifacts) predating the century mark. As an archaeologist with considerable experience in Indiana archaeology, Mrs. Munson knows good and well that this happens each and every day in rural Indiana. And each new year we'll have a new set of standards to work with? I'll bet the Farm Bureau lobby will be interested in this particular facet of the proposed amendments.

As a curious aside, Mrs. Munson's definition exhibits an interesting irony: in another 100 years the very highway, housing and industrial developers she would automatically deter today will be the pioneers and industrialists that will, by law, need to be studied by her descendant colleagues of the next century.

In fact, doesn't the whole concept of trying to take virtual control of someone else's private property by creating a floating date historic preservation statute seem unconscionable? There is no agency or enforcement mechanism in place to equitably apply such a socialist concept even if it were feasible. So the entire notion is, on it's face, one that can only be utilized or applied selectively; presumably, when Mrs. Munson or someone like her wants to. Isn't this really what is being suggested?

I sincerely hope that this is not the kind of legislation the majority of my Hoosier neighbors want passed. We're still in America, although this country's attitude is getting harder and harder to recognize when this sort of far left-wing bunk is dressed up to pass off as historic preservation.

There are plenty more points that could be and should be made, but I'll go ahead and let someone else take a crack at it.

Good night, and again best wishes to all in the coming new year.

Rich Green

This thread: