What follows includes both Parts 1 & 2 of this noted author’s ongoing fight against the Establishment. ~ Ed.

Part 1: Why Are National Heritage Areas a Threat?

Proposals for new National Heritage Areas (NHA) are raising their ugly, land-grabbing heads again in Congress and they must be stopped. Here’s why.

National Heritage Areas are one of the most despicable stealth land grabs in the nation. Americans love our history. We love preserving significant places that played an important role in the making of our unique nation. So, when we hear of a new plan in our area presented offering a chance to preserve some of our local heritage we are interested and even supportive.

But, in this day of massive government control over so much of our land, our economy, and our basic ability to live free lives, we must be cautious and look at the details of plans, no matter how innocent or well meaning they may seem.

National Heritage Areas are such a concern because they are sold to residents as simply a means to honor historic or cultural events that took place in a specific locale. We are told that they will preserve our culture and honor the past, that they will preserve battlefields where our forefathers fought and died for freedom, and that they will preserve birth places, homes, buildings, and hallowed grounds for posterity. Most importantly, we are assured that NHAs will help build tourism and boost local economies.

As described by property rights expert Leo Schwartz in 2007, in reality, NHAs are a massive sham, full of government pork, imposed by dishonest, anti-heritage, anti-private property elitism. Politicians, federal agencies, and private non-governmental organizations (NGOs) use the NHAs as a tool to gain votes, political power, and wealth. Moreover, these forces use the NHAs to impose politically-motivated restrictions on private land.

Wrote Schwartz, “In the 1980s, the National Park Service’s record of abusive land acquisition practices had become a political nightmare. It needed a new approach to continue expanding its power. During the mid-1970s, several national land use control studies proposed innovative methods for federal control of private property. Applying these methods, NHAs were designed as a ‘new kind of national park.’ Seen as pork-laden gravy trains, many elected officials eagerly jumped aboard and the empire building continued.”

It’s worth noting that in 1928, then-Interior Secretary Hubert Work said National Park Service policy “is to eliminate all private holdings in our national parks”. So, it is an honest question to ask, if NHAs are a new kind of national park, does that not mean that all of the private land located inside the massive federal boundaries established for the Heritage Area now federal park property?

Private organizations and planning groups are the actual recipients of most of these funds supposedly earmarked for the Heritage Area. These entities operate as the promoters of the NHA in partnership with the Park Service. Eventually they form a commission or a “managing entity” to enforce the “vision” to implement the Heritage Area.

Typically, such commissions consist of strictly ideological special interests groups. In the mix of these groups, one will find all of the usual suspects: environmental groups, planning groups, historic preservation groups — all with their own private agendas, and all working behind the scenes, creating policy. The managing entity then sets up non-elected boards and regional councils to oversee policy inside the Heritage Area that stretches over numerous communities and counties.

In many cases, these groups actually form a compact with the Interior Department to determine the guidelines that will make up a land use management plan and the boundaries of the Heritage Area itself. The management plan is their goal for how they envision the territory inside the boundary to be run. The plan will include guidelines for development goals, energy use, bike trails, undefined conservation controls, tourism, and anything else they want to control.

Now, after the boundaries are drawn and the management plan has been approved by the Park Service, the management entity and its special interest groups are given the federal funds, typically a million dollars a year, or more, and told to spend that money to get the management plan enacted at the local level.

Here’s how those special interest groups operate with those funds. They go to local county boards and city councils and announce that Congress has passed legislation designating the Heritage Area and that the community is now within those boundaries. They pull out maps and announce the properties they have identified to be significant for preservation.

However, as the managing entity, they don’t have the power to make laws, but the local elected officials do and so the partnership is born, fed by the federal money. Now the managing entity will help create tools, legislation, guidelines, and whatever regulatory procedures are needed to make the management plan come into fruition.

Incredibly, proponents argue that National Heritage Areas do not influence local zoning or land-use planning. Yet, by definition this is precisely what they do. Found right in the language of most Heritage Area legislation, the management entity is specifically directed to restore, preserve, and manage anything and everything that is naturally, culturally, historically, and recreationally significant to the Heritage Area.

The biggest threat to citizens living in a National Heritage Area is that it includes all the land in the designated boundary areas, not just recognized historic sites. This sweeping mandate ensures that virtually every square inch of land within the boundaries is subject to the scrutiny of Park Service bureaucrats and their managing partners. That means private property, homes, businesses, and whole communities now come under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service.

Of course, as with so many other invasive planning schemes, we are always assured that these are local initiatives, and that these are something citizens want in order to bring an honorary federal designation to help drive tourism into their regions. That simply isn’t the case. The private, non-governmental organizations and planning groups are the ones who want the plan because they get to enforce their private agendas and then get to live off the grant money as they implement them. As proponents talk about historic preservation inside the Heritage Area, one will also find the catchwords “resource conservation” and “resource stewardship,” for example. Those are the clues to watch for.

It’s all about control. Control of the land, control of resources, control of decision making. How does that fit with their stated purpose of preserving American culture – which, of course, was built on the ideals of free enterprise and private property? In fact, it does the opposite by making government more powerful and dictatorial, and the property owners loose both the use and value of their property.

As I said above, proponents of NHAs also claim that they are “locally driven” projects. Nothing could be further from the truth. Landowners within the boundaries of proposed Heritage Areas are left in the dark throughout the entire process. For example, the final official map for the 2018 proposed Caddo Lakes National Heritage Area, revealing its official boundary, was not to be released to the public until after the actual Congressional legislation was passed!

In addition, Heritage Area proponents refuse to supply a simple written notification to property owners that their land will be inside the boundaries. Seemingly the Park Service and their management “partners” are not too eager to share all the good news with the local citizenry.

I have personally been in meetings with congressional staffers to discuss Heritage Areas. I asked them if they intended to notify affected landowners living inside the boundaries of a specific Heritage Area. They looked at me like I had two heads. They shuffled their feet and looked down at the table and then said, “There’s no way to do that.” “It would be too costly.” “How could we reach everyone?” I then suggested that they research a little know federal agency called the U.S. Postal Service. Mailmen appear to deliver to each and every one of the homes in the designated area every day.

The fact is, they don’t want to tell you in advance. You might object. And that would disrupt the “process.” No matter how noble a project may sound, alarm bells should go off when proponents want to enforce their vision in secret.

National Heritage Areas depend on federal tax dollars because they lack local interest— and not a single National Heritage Area has ever succeeded in attracting strong tourism throughout their entire infinite lives. The federal money is the villain. If you just wanted to honor an area for its historic or cultural achievements, a simple resolution from Congress and a plaque at the county line could do that. The local Chamber of Commerce could then pick it up from there and build the expected tourism.

But of course, it’s not about that. It’s about control and money – lots of money in the pockets of private groups promoting their own agendas. Including taking control of people’s private land.

Part 2: Locking Up American Property Rights

There are 55 National Heritage Areas across the country, so far – with more, being proposed. Along the Mississippi River there are two, including Mississippi Delta National Heritage Area and Mississippi Gulf Coast National Heritage Area. Now, here is a region rich in history. There must be all kinds of good things happening along the mother of all rivers in the name of heritage preservation.

Well, today you won’t find people participating in one of the grand historic traditions of the river – living on riverboats. There were once whole generations of river people living on such boats. Talk about American heritage – right out of Mark Twain!

But, back in the 1990s, those living on houseboats were moved off the river. Certain other boat traffic and river activities were also curtailed. It was all in the name of environmental protection, of course. In addition, the traditional flood plain designations were moved back to an extreme distance from the river, making it impossible for existing homes built inside the original flood plains to get flood insurance, thereby stopping any further building along the river. This was called land-use planning. Where was the preservation of the heritage of those homeowners whose families had lived along the river for generations?

So, what are the Heritage Areas used to honor? Certainly not life on the river. They are essentially putting the Mississippi River in a museum.

In West Virginia we find the National Coal Heritage Area. Introduced in 1996 by former Congressman Rahall, it was sold as a way to honor the coal industry. Apparently, Rahall thought that since the miners had lost their jobs due to environmental regulations on the coal industry, perhaps, he could make up for it by throwing a few extra bucks their way by giving tours of their bankrupt area and closed mines.

I will make this challenge – just try to mine a single lump of coal inside the National Coal Heritage Area. Not on your life. Restricted. Taboo. In short, they put West Virginia coal in a museum.

What about property rights protections? When property owners express concern that their property could be taken in the process – proponents have a ready-made answer. Don’t worry, they say — they quickly point to language in the Heritage Area bills that assure property rights protections.

Written into each and every Heritage Area bill is this line: “Nothing in this subtitle…abridges the right of any property owner… including the right to refrain from participating in any plan, project, program, or activity conducted within the National Heritage Area. . .” In other words, say proponents, homeowners are assured that they actually have the right to opt out of the Heritage Area – so there is absolutely no threat to your property rights. Wow!

That language is nothing but a flimflam to keep you calm and ease your concerns, because it is physically impossible to opt out of an official government boundary that has been created by federal legislation and federal funds. It is also impossible to simply declare that you are going to opt out of any of the land-use regulations, down-zoning, or other restrictions that result from the Heritage Area designation.

When I addressed an audience of 400 residents who live inside the proposed boundaries of the Caddo Lake NHA I asked for a show of hands from everyone who wanted to opt out of it. Every hand in the room went up. As the restrictions on property are steadily legislated into place due to the NHA, opting out is simply not an option.

As I and others worked to oppose National Heritage Areas, we asked proponents in Congress if they had commissioned property rights experts to look over the legislation to find any dangers. We said, “Have you put these bills before experts, specifically public interest property rights attorneys?” The answer we received was “No, and we don’t plan to.”

The federal designation, made through congressional legislation, creating federal regulations and oversight by the National Park Service, require a form of contract between state and local governmental entities and the Secretary of the Interior. That contract is to manage the land-use of the region for preservation. That means federal control and zoning, either directly, under the terms of the “management pact”, or indirectly.

Such “indirect” control is the real danger. In spite of the specific language in the bill which states property rights will be protected, the true damage to homeowners may well come from the private non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and preservation agencies which receive public funds through the Park Service and then use those funds to promote their own private agendas.

The experience with many existing National Heritage Areas clearly shows such groups will convert this money into political activism to encourage local community and county governments to pass and enforce strict zoning laws, which enforce their own radical environmental agenda and have no real association to the stated goals of the NHA.

While the tactic makes it appear that home rule is fully in force, removing blame from the federal designation, the impact is fully the fault of the NHA designation. The result means private property owner’s rights are diminished and much of the local land-use and development is brought to a standstill.

Property that is locked away for preservation is no longer productive and stops providing the community with tax dollars. Some roads most assuredly will be closed “to protect the integrity of the historic area”. That means land is locked away from private development, diminishing growth for the community, even if that land has nothing to do with historic preservation. It also means hunting and recreational use of the land may well be curtailed.

Eventually, such restrictions will take away the community’s economic base. Communities with sagging economies become run-down and uninviting. Preservation zoning and lack of jobs force ordinary people to move away. Experience has shown tourism rarely materializes as promised. And it’s never enough to save an area economically.

These are the reasons why the specific language in the Heritage Area legislation designed to protect private property rights is basically meaningless to the actual outcome. While the land may not be specifically locked away in the name of the federal designation, its very existence creates the pressure on local government to act. The result is the same.

The fact is the National Heritage Area designations are completely unnecessary. Most of the true historic sites, like presidential birthplaces and battle fields, are already well preserved and under the control of the National Park Service.

In short, the greatest threat from the Heritage Area is that it creates a pipeline of federal money – and consequently political power – for these national organizations to promote their specific agendas over your community and its development. In addition, there is virtually no accountability for tax-exempt NGOs on how they actually spend the Federal Park Service funding. Their books are closed. No FOIA. No open meetings. No public hearings. No elections. How does that honor American heritage?

July 1, 2021

© 2021 Tom DeWeese – All Rights Reserved

~ The Author ~
Thomas A. DeWeese is the President of the American Policy Center.

Tom DeWeese’s commentaries may not be reprinted or republished without permission. All Rights Reserved. Submitted to and published by Kettle Moraine, Ltd. by arrangement, and with permission of the author.