NEWS RELEASE - April 19, 2004
Contact: Brad VanDyke, representative
Rural Utahns For Local Solutions
PO Box 3, Spring City, UT 84662
(435)462-4575 fedsoff89@yahoo.com
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE!!!
KANAB PANEL SPURS DISCUSSION OF NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA PROPOSAL:
CALLED “FIRST NIGHT OF PUBLIC PROCESS”
“This is the first night of a public process we’ve been
involved with,” Kane County Commissioner Mark Habbeshaw told
participants in a panel discussion on the proposed National Mormon
Pioneer Heritage Area held in Kanab last Wednesday, April 14th.
The statement challenges claims by proponents that the designation
of private and public lands along a 250-mile-long corridor in
southern and central Utah as a “national heritage area”
has broad public backing.
Introduced by Senator Bob Bennett as S 916, the bill earmarks
$10 million in matching federal money for tourism promotion, historic
preservation, and so-called “heritage” businesses. It
also appoints the Utah Heritage Highway 89 Alliance, an arts,
travel, and preservation organization as the “management
entity” of the proposed area, their plan being subject to
the approval of the US Secretary of the Interior. The heritage
area program is administered through the National Park Service.
In addition to Habbeshaw, four other panelists participated: Kane
County Commissioner Dan Hewlett; Monte Bona, executive director
of the Heritage Alliance; Brad VanDyke, representative of Rural
Utahns For Local Solutions, a grassroots network demanding public
involvement in the issue; and Bruce Richeson, special advisor
on natural resources from Senator Bennett’s office.
Bona explained the history of the Heritage Alliance from its beginnings
as the Utah Heritage Products Coalition, and described the main
purposes of the heritage area designation as first, recognition
of Mormon heritage, and second, tourism and economic development.
VanDyke quoted Property Rights Foundation of America President
Carol LaGrasse’s March 30th testimony before the US Senate
on national heritage areas, when she called the program “federal
land use control.” He also warned of rising land prices and
taxes combined with low seasonal tourism wages driving local residents
out in favor of a “leisure elite” in areas of government
sponsored tourism-dependent economies. He drew parallels between
the heritage area program and the radical environmentalist Wildlands
Project.
The Canyon Country Rural Alliance, an organization concerned with
federal encroachment on southern Utah lands, sponsored the discussion.
One CCRA vice president, Marilyn Lawson, asked panelists why artisans,
crafters, and outfitters were named as aspects of the corridor’s
heritage in the bill, but farmers, ranchers, miners, and loggers
were not recognized.
Commissioner Habbeshaw, representing his position as a compromise
between Bona’s and VanDyke’s, presented a revised version
of Bennett’s bill that recognized farmers, ranchers, miners,
and loggers as part of the area’s heritage. The main emphasis
of Habbeshaw’s revision, however, was an attempt to word
legislation so that local government is in the driver’s seat,
rather that the Heritage Alliance, National Park Service, and
the Department of the Interior.
This position reflects growing concern in rural areas that so-called
“public-private partnerships,” especially between bureaucracies
and nonprofits or “NGOs” are usurping representative
government. Habbeshaw and Bona disagreed, however, as to whether
the Heritage Alliance is an NGO.
Richeson warned that, though a bill could be written any way,
changes such as adding mining, logging, and ranching would threaten
the bill with rejection or amendment by congress. Both Richeson
and Bona referred to reports by the General Accounting Office
that heritage areas don’t impose on property rights.
Van Dyke countered that the GAO had refused to investigate indirect
control of property and zoning through “teeth” attached
to funding. He felt that compromise was not an option “till
all the cards are on the table,” and again demanded public
hearings, written notification to property owners, and a map showing
the extent of the area.
On the other hand, he urged consideration of PRFA President Carol
LaGrasse’s proposals: eliminate geographic delineations of
heritage areas and replace the program with state-by-state heritage
block grants; prohibit the government-NGO partnerships and get
the National Park Service out of the program. He referred congressional
testimony that the heritage area programs lack accountability
as they stand today. He also criticized the growing number of
rural bureaucracies, unreported by the media, pushing a similar
“New West” recreation agenda.
When pressed on for the extent of the area, Bona said it was described
in the bill. Asked “how wide?,” Bona revealed that the
boundaries of Sanpete, Sevier, Piute, Wayne, Garfield, and Kane
counties were essentially the national heritage area boundaries.
Some in the audience expressed surprise.
Habbeshaw expressed concern that county governments had not been
involved enough with the legislation. He asked if there was still
time to consider revision before passage. Richeson responded that
“the Alliance,” not the counties, “came to the
senator and asked him for this bill.” He assured them that
Bennett was willing to sit down with the commissioners, but that
there were six counties to deal with.
NOTE: Rural Utahns For Local Solutions is a multipartisan volunteer
network promoting local alternatives for resolving rural Utah
economic, social, and cultural problems. Many of our members look
beyond the conventional left-right spectrum to populist, agrarian,
and decentralist concepts as opposed to corporate, federal, and
privilege-granting programs. Many of us look to representative
democracy as opposed to the bureaucratic-aristocratic partnerships
now being promoted for rural America.
Brad Van Dyke, representative
Rural Utahns For Local Solutions
P.O. Box 3
Spring City, Utah 84662
(435)462-4575
fedsoff89@yahoo.com
| Back to: | |
|
|
|
