The inner workings of our state and federal government, and their roles in the protection of local resources, are interconnected systems of regulations, incentives, and directives conceived to protect our historic resources. The federal government's role in local protections arguably began in 1966 with the Historic Preservation Act. The National Register, the federal tax incentive program, SEPA review, Section 106 review, and the Secretary of the Interior's standards for the rehabilitation of historic buildings are all related to the federal government's role in local preservation activity. In many cases, the federal government provides standards that are followed by local jurisdictions.

These standards and procedures are now a convention of design review and preservation practice throughout the country, and as a result, can easily be taken for granted. But as environmental advocates have to watch changes in policies effecting natural resources, so do preservation advocates have to stay aware of proposed budget and policy changes that potentially undermine good preservation policy and incentives.

Watch Dogs

Threats to specific resources are a lot easier to advocate around than policy issues. Many people have a strong visceral response to the potential loss of a community asset, like a school, library, park, or an impressive house and a less personal connection to legislative bills and acronyms with unknown impacts. Nonetheless, policy issues tend to have much greater effect on historic places than the loss of individual buildings.

Those interested in public policy are often professional preservationists, lawyers, planners, elected officials, and the more engaged members of advocacy groups who are well aware of the relationship between good policy and their survival. These are often called "special interest groups" even though virtually everyone is a part of more than one "special interest" supported (or not) by our laws.

Knowing exactly how a federal policy will effect preservation generally requires the help of dedicated, often professional watchdogs. Federal policies (like other levels of public policy) can be tedious, complex, and are subject to change while legislators argue amongst themselves about the values and realities governing budgets. A good policy watchdog helps their constituency understand the issues so that most anyone can understand and respond with a well-timed letter to the appropriate elected official.

Preservation Action is the national advocacy group dedicated to monitoring federal policy for problems and potential enhancements. Their 2.5 staff members support a nationwide network of preservation advocates. Anyone interested in historic preservation should be a part of this email network.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation also lobbies as a part of its nationwide role as a preservation advocate. Their website provides some information on upcoming changes to federal laws and policies effecting historic resources. The Trust is an enormous organization spread throughout our country in a number of regional offices, and is well known thanks to its Preservation Magazine and selected grants to local projects.

The Washington Trust for Historic Preservation is our statewide advocacy group. This organization has been around for several years, but received a shot in the arm with the donation of the Stimson Green Mansion last year, and the hiring of Lisbeth Henning as its new Executive Director. She and her Board are dedicated to better advocacy networks statewide. In addition to advocating around specific endangered properties through the Trust's 10 Most Endangered List, the Washington Trust has a number of members who lobby for effective policies and against budget cuts to preservation-related programs.

Historic Seattle has stepped up its public information efforts with the creation of this magazine, and the organizational support for a full time preservation advocate. Being a part of our email advocacy network (which also includes announcements for new editions to this magazine) is an easy way to keep informed about threats and the need for public comment to elected officials.

Membership and participation in any of these groups will help any would-be advocate know more about what's happening in the world of preservation and public policies.

Being informed about upcoming budget changes and legislation is an invaluable piece of grassroots lobby efforts. It is also a crucial part of being a civic-minded, engaged and educated member of the voting public. Elected officials are always making choices between different areas of interest. If citizen advocates don't know what's going on, and do not act, advocates for other issues have an easier time vying for limited funds. Knowing how policies effect preservation at a local, statewide and national level, and writing letters is a crucial to the success of historic preservation here in the Seattle area.

Advocates, Supporters, Constituents, and Lobbyists

The image that the word "lobbyist" conjures is a lot different than the vast majority of citizens that contact their elected officials in the name of historic preservation. Anyone can do this, and many people without professional education or experience in preservation, planning or law are very effective lobbyists. The only requirements are conviction, good information, and a clear message.

Generally, those individuals who have the most contact with preservation projects make the best advocates or lobbyists for better policy. When asking elected officials to support significant pieces of legislation, or reconsider cuts to programs, having personal experience that specifically relates to legislation is a valuable asset. This could be anyone who wished there were more incentives for fixing up old houses, or better tax advantages for historic commercial property development.

Why We Should Pay Attention

Although we have incentives that help people do the right thing by our historic buildings, there is still a lot of room for growth. Preservationists in our neck of the woods still compete with property rights advocates who characterize preservationists in negative terms. Preservation protections (otherwise known as 'sticks') should be complemented with persuasive incentives (otherwise known as 'carrots') to create ideal environments for expanded preservation activity.

Even those of us who cherish historic buildings have a hard time swallowing the high costs of rehabilitating or restoring them. Wouldn't it be great if there were more financial incentives and tax breaks for sensitively rehabilitating an old house? Wouldn't it be great if planners knew about historic resources before projects began rather than after, thus preventing great community backlash and lengthy appeals? Yes, of course, and both of these good ideas are quite possible, but preservation-minded voters need to pay attention, send letters to electeds when these issues are under active consideration, join groups who help distribute good information, and stick together to see positive change.

Efforts to create a home owners assistance program supporting historic preservation have been underway for some time, and each state has a different view on proactive survey efforts that help multiple departments save time in the long run when planning and designing transportation and building projects. The City of Seattle has supported a neighborhood-by-neighborhood survey of historic buildings with a small pool of money for professional preservationists aided by a large pool of volunteer support.

Seattle has a lot of financial resources relative to other municipalities in our state, and is better able to provide preservation funds from local tax dollars. Hopefully funds will become available for survey activity state wide that will help these communities.

Upcoming Legislation to Watch

Right now (March 2003), many important pieces of preservation-related legislation and top-down efforts are moving through the offices of our elected officials. These include:

The Historic Preservation Fund, which is the primary funding source for our state office of historic preservation. Bush's proposed budget includes a significant cut to the HPF, which would mean a nearly 30% reduction for our state preservation office's budget from 2001 numbers. This would mean no grants to municipalities who have limited tax bases. These grants have always been modest, but have spurred local support through private sponsorships and other grants.

Another potential causality is a small but very important piece of transportation review legislation known as 4F. This line of legislation is a directive, calling for consideration of all possible alternatives before effecting historic resources as a part of transportation projects. This has not held up any projects, but rather, has arguably streamlined the process by avoiding lengthy delays that result from piecemeal survey efforts and citizen appeals. 4F has been characterized by some as a redundant piece of legislation - Section 106 review is a regulatory measure that involves identifying historic resources potentially effected by proposed projects. What this argument misses is that 4F is a mandate, a general statement that points to solid leadership while Section 106 is a process that complements this directive. These work together.

Also related to transportation and preservation is the proposed reauthorization of T-21, which originated as a transportation mitigation package designed to pay our nation back for the egregious damage wrought by large scale highway projects. The "enhancements" part of this bill have helped pay for depot rehabilitation and a number of improvements (translation = preservation activity) along federally funded roads, highways and interstates. This funding also supports the Rails to Trails program which is very appropriate and popular here in Washington state, at least among our large hiking constituency (walking being yet another special interest).

On March 11, 2003 a delegation of ten preservation advocates from Washington state participated in a national Preservation Lobby Day sponsored by Preservation Action. Historic Seattle, the Washington Trust for Historic Preservation, the Mayor of North Bend (Joan Simpson) a member of Spokane Preservation Advocates (Steve Franks) and other citizen advocates each met with legislators or their staff to explain how proposed changes to the budget and laws will impact historic resources in our state. Though much further away than other states represented at Lobby Day, our state had the largest delegation. We also, arguably, had way more fun than any other delegation.

There are many opportunities to meet with your elected officials to advocate for preservation. If you are interested in this sort of preservation advocacy, stay tuned to Preservation Seattle, and sign up for email advocacy lists provided by our fellow preservation advocates in Washington state and Washington, DC.

View last month's Public Policy article

Back to Top