How many presidential homes should be in the National Park System?/NPS
Editor's note: Harry Butowsky spent more than three decades working for the National Park Service as an historian. With the NPS facing a maintenance backlog of billions of dollars, and a budget that struggles to keep up with needs, he questions not only whether a hold should be placed on additions to the National Park System, but whether some culling of the system needs to be done.
It is time to rethink the direction and management of the National Park System. It is time to ask if the system has grown so large that it is unmanageable and not fundable.
In the 99 years since the founding of the National Park Service, the National Park System has grown from less than 20 parks to an enormous bureaucracy far beyond what Stephen Mather and Horace Albright envisioned; it has become much more complex than preserving and managing park sites.
The Park Service now has responsibility for managing a broad range of programs; its legislative mandate has grown to include clean air and water, protection of archaeological resources, historic preservation, endangered species, wild and scenic rivers, 40 national heritage areas, large cooperative landscape projects, and environmental protection. The National Park System has expanded from a collection of the great scenic parks to hundreds of diverse sites and programs.
The list of new responsibilities is endless. As the Park Service's mission has grown in complexity, so too has the enormousness of the issues the agency faces - along with the cost of maintaining these programs.
We now have 407 National Parks and $11.5 billion in a maintenance and budget short fall. Not enough you say? Then just wait for the President or Congress to create another 20 or 30 national park units.
If you do not think this will happen then think again. A quick search of the web will uncover many potential new national monuments and parks under consideration.
So how many parks are enough? Why stop at 450 units? Why not go to 500 units? After all, what is a little maintenance and staff shortage when there are so many potential sites for national parks?
For some supporters of the National Park Service, growth is good and not a problem. In his recent essay, Preserved and Enlarged Forever (The George Wright Forum, Vol. 32 No. 1, 2015), Rolf Diamant offered his opinion that new parks will not degrade the system and that growth is not only inevitable but good. The money may not be there today, but it will follow.
Well, let me offer another opinion and let us face the facts. We have too many national parks now and cannot afford them all. As an agency the National Park Service needs to make the dollars fit the number of parks we have. The obvious answer is to start divesting ourselves of some marginal units. Yes, we need to get rid of parks and not add to the total. There is nothing new or radical about this. It has been done in the past and it can and must be done now.
The Case for Delisting Units
Anyone wanting to understand this statement should read, Gone, But Not Forgotten: the Delisted units of the National Park System by Alan Hogenauer, and Former National Park Service Units: An Analysis by Barry Mackintosh.
In his article, Mr. Mackintosh states that, "Between 1930 and 1994, 23 units of the National Park System were transferred from National Park Service administration to other custody." (Not included in this number are areas authorized but never established as park system units, such as Georgia O'Keeffe National Historic Site and Zuni-Cibola National Historical Park).
So, let us accept the fact that the National Park Service has delisted parks in the past for many reasons.
Why should we do this now? I will give you're an overriding reason. We have a maintenance backlog of $11.5 billion that is growing and not likely to get better in the future.
The National Park Service is not the only government agency with a large maintenance backlog. One has only to look at the recent tragedy in Philadelphia with the derailment of the Amtrak express to New York and the failure of Congress to vote additional funds to repair the Amtrak system to see the larger government-wide dimension of this problem. While the ultimate cause of this train derailment has not yet been determined, a mandated braking system for the curve in Philadelphia was not in place.
Along with the maintenance backlog, we have a staffing crisis. There are not enough people to staff the front desks, do interpretive tours, and provide for critical maintenance and visitor protection services in the parks. Money and people simply do not match the need of the agency.
If we are going to delist parks then, let's take presidential units as one example. We have no fewer than 27 units commemorating presidents. The question to be answered is: why do we need each of these units? The next question is, why do some presidents have parks commemorating their presidency but not all presidents (for example, why Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton but not the Bushes, Reagan, Nixon, or Ford? In 2017, will we need to establish an Obama Birthplace NHS?)
We should examine the Jimmy Carter National Historic Site and ask why can't it be turned over and managed by the Carter Foundation? The same can be said for President William Jefferson Clinton Birthplace Home National Historic Site being managed by the Clinton Foundation. The Reagan Ranch is not a National Historic Site, yet it is being managed by the Young America's Foundation. Both Mount Vernon and Monticello are managed by private entities (Mount Vernon Ladies' Association and Thomas Jefferson Foundation, Inc., respectively). Both are no less nationally significant than other presidential sites, yet neither have a National Historic Site designation, nor are they NPS managed, and yet they are well-maintained, ably interpreted, and highly regarded.
The same can be said for Civil War parks and battlefields. Brices Cross Roads National Battlefield Site is just one acre in size, yet adjacent to this site is a 1,330-acre property managed by the Brice's Crossroads National Battlefield Commission, Inc.
Why can't the one-acre National Park Service site simply be turned over to the Commission to have them manage?
Should the 1-acre Tupelo National Battlefield be part of the National Park System??NPS
Tupelo National Battlefield is one-acre in downtown Tupelo. Again, why can't this unit be turned over to the city of Tupelo? We have more than 70 units of the National Park System that commemorate the Civil War. I would suggest that in this era of declining revenue, the Park Service is managing too many parks dedicated to this history - let's have state or private entities manage some of these units.
Let's consider the issue of the growing number of parks that interpret the Internment of Japanese Americans in World War II. Do we need four Japanese-American Internment units (Manzanar, Minidoka, Tule Lake and Honouliuli)?
What is the true value of having four units and possibly another unit at Heart Mountain in Wyoming. (The National Park Service has given the Heart Mountain Wyoming Foundation some grant money to help them in their goal to manage the site.) Minidoka and Tule Lake lack interpretive integrity (most especially Tule Lake, since the small site is surrounded by the rather run-down town of Newell). Minidoka has no extant buildings, with a few original structures now located on adjacent farming properties, but they've all been radically altered from the original.
I don't see why scarce NPS funds should be spread out so thin to so many sites pertaining to this theme instead of focusing funding on making Manzanar the premier site to interpret this theme.
The real and only viable option in my opinion is for Congress to set up a park "closing" commission similar to the base closing commission established several years ago to get rid of substandard and excess military facilities. Closing in this case could include either delisting units or transferring ownership. In essence, the principal focus of this commission would be to evaluate what our current National Park System should comprise and provide recommendations to the Park Service director for future designations to 'round out' the system.
While I'm advocating a leaner National Park System, this commission should also evaluate the merits of transferring ownership of non-NPS managed National Monuments (BLM, USFS, etc.) to National Park Service jurisdiction, if such a transfer would help to improve site integrity (Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument is a recent example of a transfer from BLM to NPS jurisdiction).
The Case for Transferring Ownership
Perhaps the National Park Service can adopt a Parks Canada approach - have units declared national historic sites/parks (future and existing designations alike) and yet have other entities simply manage those sites. In Canada, there are 972 National Historic Sites, but only 168 are administered by Parks Canada - private and provincial entities manage the vast bulk of the designated National Historic Sites in Canada - why couldn't the same approach be taken here in the U.S.?
The important fact to keep in mind here is that all monies and personnel savings should remain with the National Park Service and be distributed to the remaining parks. There is no reason to close facilities if we lose the money saved.
Of course, one possible political risk of divesting NPS units would be some folks wanting to turn money-making parks over to the states - Grand Canyon National Park certainly comes to mind. Such a move would weaken the remaining parks by the loss of this asset (beyond the fiscal perspective, the knowledge gained by staff managing this park would preclude employees transferring that knowledge to other park units when they are relocated), so there are indeed risks of such a process being hijacked for political purposes.
Does that mean we should not have this discussion and take a comprehensive look at the system and see if our current system adheres to the ideals that Mather and Albright envisioned? I think we owe it to them to have that discussion.
Comments
Okay, Michael. Now I get it. You're drinking Paul Krugman's Kool Aid. He's an idiot, but I digress. Anyone can believe that money grows on trees. It doesn't. It is a reflection of a society's "energy," and our "energy"--and the world's--has been diluted beyond repair. Fine. Let's take all of those billionaires and shake them down to the penny. I am certainly all for using Theodore Roosevelt's "Big Stick." Bust the corporations up; make them more competitive again. Start with the banks, the railroads, and the airlines, and work down.
Now what? How long could that "run" the country? There are now 93,000,000 of us out of full-time work. Since we are not working we are not counted. That is the only way Paul Krugman can crow about a "recovering" economy. As I said, a total idiot, but then, he's a millionaire writing for THE NEW YORK TIMES. The economy probably feels very good to him, but how in truth does it feel to you? As my father-in-law used to say, don't read the newspaper. Look around. When I see college-educated young people in my neighborhood pouring coffee--dozens of them--I get a very different picture from that of an "economist." How many will be hired when those corporations are busted up? A few. But like money, you don't just grow jobs on trees. Seattle is allegedly a boom town right now, but again, there are only half the jobs we need for full employment, i.e., 40 hours a week, not 20 or 30.
Consequently, Patty Murray, et al., support the military, which employs far more people than the National Park Service. Paul Krugman says not to worry about the national debt--government should keep hiring and hiring and hiring. And spending and spending and spending. Is that how Mr. Krugman runs his household? If not, why does he want to run his country into the ground?
Because he is a closet Marxist. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." Well, ask Greece how that is working--and France, and Spain, and Italy. I work; you sit. I retire; you work harder. Energy, my friends. Not rhetoric. That is what an economy is. If all of its energy is spent paying for people who sit and retire, you have Greece--and less money for national parks.
Kurt and I were talking about this just last month. He supports The Traveler totally on his dime. You people send him a few bucks once in while, and then you forget about it. You want his energy, talent, and expertise for free.
Welcome to Paul Krugman's "economy." I know; he won the Nobel Prize, someone will say. Well, so did Al Gore and Barack Obama. And don't get me started about the Academy Awards.
I think for myself. And you know what I think? Dr. Harry Butowsky is right. We like kidding ourselves that people in power "earned" it, when in fact we put them there through our lack of due diligence. I ran for mayor of Seattle, and every fiscal problem I warned about has come true. The current mayor's answer to that? More bond issues, all of them falling hardest on the middle class. Parks! Roads! Schools! The developers want it; they got it. Limits to growth? What are limits? Paul Krugman assures that ll of those limits are entirely in our mind. Bring it on. Spend like drunken sailors. Make more billionaires out of millionaires, and then tell the people we are liberals--and a "green" city on top of that. Obviously, I lost the election, but I still have not lost my mind.
Alfred, I am neither an historian nor an economist, so I am reluctant to comment except to say I find your posts interesting, provocative and at times confrontational. Rather than to much Krugman coolaid, it maybe a case of to much Friedman/Greespan neo liberal economic theory, that is, achieving the economic utopia by deregulation, privatization, trickle down, fear and hate politics ruled by those with the money to buy the system, etc., well from my vantage point it is not working very well. I support Mr. Butowsky's right to generate a discussion, it was not in your face and he had some creditability in his viewpoint. No system is so sacred that an objective evaluation of the issue cannot be discussed. I disagree with Harry, I think RSmith has it right, but thank you Harry for your years of service and a viewpoint well expressed.
As others have mentioned, some fascinating discussion here, but I must say that I have to agree with those who are respectfully disagreeing with Alfred's rather aggressive comments. The commentary by Kellett, Rick Smith, Lee, and others more closely resembles my life experience and understanding.
]This is Rick B - for some reason NPT's new software has bungled my logging in]
[[ Fixed - thanks, Kurt ]]
Thank you for your comments. I do not have a perfect solution but I do think we need to have this discussion. I gave most of my adult life to supporting the parks and the NPS and I want this wonderful legacy to continued into the future. There is nothing wrong with discussion and raising my concerns. I only want what is best for the parks
Congressional underfunding is the least persuasive justification for delisting I can imagine. It makes the very idea of designation meaningless if future legislatures can undo it through budget compromises.
"the so-called debt "crisis" is a myth that has been perpetuated by Wall Street and corporate elites who hate government and want to downsize it so they can make more money. "
LOL! Spoken like a true a democrat. Your leader said adding 4 trillion was unpatriotic and irresponsible but adding 8 trillion to debt is a myth. LOL!
"Spoken like a true democrat" - you say that like it's something to be ashamed of.
I was a republican, then an apolitical, then a democrat, and now consider myself a non-aligned progressive.
None of this label claiming or finger pointing is getting the parks fixed. Let's move away from the slogans and accusations and find some solutions. Some actual bipartisan deal making and cooperation, like some of the giants of days gone by - Lyndon Johnson, Tip O'Neill, Barry Goldwater. Crossing party lines and horsetrading, if that's what it takes, to just get some work done.