Jon Margolis on the AIV meeting

For background on this, please read CL's post about it here.

I went down to the AIV seminar this morning to have a look, it was about 3/4th's full, and Jon Margolis was still not allowed to attend as a member of the press, although he did interview a few folks. I had a moment or two to sit down with him and get his thoughts on the matter:

 

5 thoughts on “Jon Margolis on the AIV meeting

  1. The Free Press’s Candy Page (on the environmental beat) picked up the story with full credit to Jon Margolis’s reporting on his VT News Guy blog.

    Plus the FP’s editorial slot was dedicated to the exclusion of the press from the meeting. Yeah, smells like Gov. DoesLess told his peeps to make some accommodations (speculation, of course) to the big money guys. He’s got an election to win and Jimmy need new shoes!

  2. The Vermont News Bureau has little bit about  this and gives credit to “…..some questions on online news sites about the propriety of such meetings.”

    Regarding the rule changes themselves ,a couple weeks back John Dillion on VPR mentioned the news about the proposed rule adjustment quoted a state official and noted the up coming conference .

    (Dillion)State officials say they’re trying to clarify the rules by going back to the original language in Act 250. Tayt Brooks is deputy commissioner of the Department of Economic, Housing and Community Development. He says the Act 250 law refers to sites that are on the historic register.

    (Brooks) I really think there was just a lack of understanding. But we’ve been educating folks as to the reason. And frankly, those protections are still in place under our current proposal.

    (Dillon) Developers have complained in the past about the archaeology protections in Act 250. And a conference later this month sponsored by Associated Industries of Vermont will focus on the proposed changes to the rules. Brooks – who used to work for the Vermont Homebuilders Association – says the Douglas Administration has heard the concerns.

    http://www.timesargus.com/arti

    http://www.vpr.net/news_detail

  3. 2009 marks the 400th anniversary of the Samuel de Champlain’s arrival in the lake which now bears his name. And today, in Montpelier, the Associated Industries of Vermont held a meeting with policy makers at the Capital Plaza Hotel. A primary topic was proposed rule changes to the Act 250 process regarding archaeology and historic preservation. Members of the press were not allowed.

    For discloser’s sake, I currently work as a professional archeologist, and have done so exclusively in Vermont for the last five years.  So yes, I clearly have a horse in this race, as should all Vermonters who understand our common history as something that is worth preserving.

    That said, what was happening in the AIV meeting, and what has been coming down the line for the last few months (or years?) is an attempt by Douglas and his stooges to eliminate all meaningful archaeology and historic investigation (and subsequent preservation) as it relates to future development. However, to hear these stooges speak (and I have) all they are doing is ‘clarifying points in the existing rules.’ This is a lie.

    By changing the current wording of the 250 regulations from “or a potentially significant property or resource” to “a project’s potential effect on a historic site,” act 250 would now only kick in, as far as archaeology is concerned, when and if a developer proposes to “pave over” a known and registered historic site. As John Crock, the respected Director of the Consulting Archaeology Program at UVM has publicly stated, “this would be the equivalent of only mapping wetlands on properties where wetlands have already been mapped, only inventorying wildlife habitats on properties where animal species have already been inventoried, or only checking for rare plant colonies on properties where rare plant colonies have already been recorded.”  -In a word, if Douglas’s changes to 250 go into effect as intended, countless Native American and early Vermont colonial sites, that are currently unidentified, will be forever lost to our collective memory.

    So who stands to benefit from these rule changes? Certainly not the Abenaki who, in part, rely on such archaeological investigations to gain back a part of their unwritten history. And certainly not other Vermonters who believe our colonial past is something that we should give value to. But yes, the big developers.. They stand to gain in that they will no longer be required to pay the modest fees associated with archeologists clearing or investigating sensitive land slated for the bulldozer. So yes, the big, already wealthy developers will gain a little more green in their pockets, and the rest of Vermont will be poorer for it.

    And the archaeologists? If these rules go through, archaeology as a trade will no longer exist in Vermont. Perhaps 40 archaeologists will lose their jobs; 40 more Vermonters out of work and in a desperate situation because of the policies of the Douglas administration; yet another stone in the well of our new economic depression. Jim = Jobs. Right.

    Of course the Douglas talking heads will claim that by allowing developers to ignore the preservation of our history, they will be less burdened by regulations, they will build more, and they will therefore create more jobs. This will be the mantra, but this will also be untrue. Saying that spending a small fraction on cultural preservation is detrimental towards job creation is like saying building safety codes are a burden on contractors who, ultimately, are just trying to put people to work. In truth, Archaeologists are simply providing the service in making sure our history is not lost while we continue to responsibly develop our green hills. Archeologists are a part of a responsible development process, not counter to it.

    At the end of the day Douglas will likely do all he can to push these rule changes through; he “owes” it to his backers in development. However, already professional archaeologists, members of the amateur Vermont Archaeology Society, various local Vermont historical societies, and tribal leaders of the Abenaki Nation are pushing back. And with the 2010 elections around the corner it is probable that his proposed gutting of historical preservation will become a campaign issue. As an archaeologist, as a district vice president in the AFL-CIO, and as a Vermonter that contends we have an obligation to preserve our past for the enlightenment of future generations, I believe that the final chapter on this issue is yet to be written. -In the mean time, I encourage all who do have feelings on this issue to contact your representatives in the General Assembly. And call the Douglas folks and tell them “enough is enough.”

    -David Van Deusen,

    District Vice President,

    Vermont AFL-CIO  

Comments are closed.