Thanks for the clarification, Cheryl - I certainly didn't understand the
significance of this when I first read it.
Dale Drake
Morgan County History & Genealogy Assn., Cemetery Committee
Cheryl Ann Munson wrote:
I am writing about HB 1960 and HB 1758, and also to reply to several points
raised by Jack and Rich, and Lois.
I would like to share with readers what I know of the (1) background of the
"classified land" approach, and (2) a few particulars about differences
between the bills.
1. Background.
Last summer I testified to the legislature's Natural Resources Study
Committee about the program of "land classification" for preservation
incentives. I spoke as a professional archaeologist who has grappled with
preserving both cemeteries and historic sites.
I learned from a private landowner that there was no incentive for him to
preserve an important archaeological site on his family farm, but that
person had been encouraged to preserve important woodlands through the
Classified Forest program which gives a property tax reduction. The state
also has a program for Classified Wildlife Habitat, to encourage sound
management of habitat for the wild animals we value, again with property tax
reduction.
In contrast to incentives for conserving forest lands and wildlife habitat,
for cemeteries and archaeological sites there are only prohibitions for
disturbing human remains or tombstones and cemetery fences. For historic
sites, there are tax-saving incentives for preservation at the federal level
for sites on the National Register of Historic Places, and then only if
restoration involves a business enterprise, but none for owners of historic
sites that are non-business property. Similarly, there is Indiana's
Historic Preservation Investment Tax Credit, on business income taxes, but
that only applies to business who invest in the care of historic sites.
Homeowners do not qualify, unless their home is also the site of their
business.
I believe the land classification program provides a useful "preservation
tool." for Indiana's cemeteries and significant historic sites. It is a
tool that follows the successful models of the state's programs for
preserving forests and wildlife areas on private lands.
But I also think the land classification program for cemeteries and historic
sites on private lands, would be MORE important in the long term than the
Classified Forest program. Unlike areas that have lost forest cover or the
kinds of vegetation needed for sustainable wild animal species, we cannot
"re-introduce" or "replant" cemeteries, nor burial grounds, nor
important
historic sites, nor archaeological sites such as prehistoric villages. Once
cemeteries and other historic resources are destroyed, there is no way to
recover or restore these fragile resources.
Of course land classification and tax reduction are not be a panacea for
preserving cemeteries and historic sites. But then again, prohibitions
against and penalties for taking or allowing destructive actions toward
cemeteries are also inadequate to halt destruction.
I think the preservation wagon will move better with a carrot, and not just
a whip, and Classified Cemeteries and Classified Historic sites are good
carrots.
2. Differences and similarities between the bills.
HB 1960, sponsored by Reps. Peggy Welch and Markt Lytle, covers both
state-registered cemeteries and state-registered historic sites (which
include archaeological sites).
HB 1758, sponsored by Rep. Lytle, covers only registered cemeteries.
HB 1758 also includes some technical "clean up" wording adding "burial
grounds" to the penalties provided in last year's legislation (burial
grounds were unintentionally eliminated from the version that was passed.)
The two bills are similar in structure. Both allow air photos to be used to
describe the location of cemeteries, if these would be adequate.
Both bills are careful to maintain taxes on resources used by industry, such
as coals mining. Since both bills provide for taxing exploitation of gas,
oil, coal, etc., I do not see any special benefit to industries, just the
usual benefit given to all property owners who would preserve classified
cemeteries and historic sites. Businesses, like private citizens, obviously
need incentives for preservation.
HB 1960 includes language covering standards and recovery of taxes. It:
a. has the state division of historic preservation and archaeology set
standards for classified cemeteries and historic sites that the landowners
of classified properties must follow or the state would withdraw the
classification;
b. allows for owner to withdraw the classification for whatever reason;
c. if classification is withdrawn by owner or the state, requires property
owner to pay back taxes + 10% interest.
It would be fine if HB 1960 and HB1758 were consolidated into one, with the
technical language of 1758 added to 1960, or the provisions for historic
sites, standards, and tax recovery of 1960 added to 1758.
3. Based on my experience in talking with Rep. Welch and Rep. Lytle on
preservation issues, they both would like to hear from you about any
concerns you have, or any ideas to make the bills better.
Here's a few closing thoughts.
- I think it would be good to have historic sites included along with
cemeteries, because all our important historic resources deserve care.
- The classified program will keep the cemetery preservation issue before
the public, which is where we want it. It will enhance dialog between local
officials, private owners, and historic preservation organizations, and
state specialists as individual cemeteries and historic sites become added
to the classified program
- People who have Classified Forests on their land talk about them with a
sense of pride, and these conserved woodlands have become "status"
indicators in some circles. I think that would be just great for classified
cemeteries and classified historic sites, too for people to be proud of
conserving them and to be recognized by the state for doing so.
- The requirement that historic sites be on the state register is a good
one, since the significance of the site should be judged and its qualities
known if good management is to take place. Of course, the number of such
sites is not large and the acreage is very small, and so the fiscal impact
is minute.
- If an owner can't pay for a survey but otherwise would like to have their
cemetery classified, it may be possible for local organizations to help
cover the cost, or for professional surveyors even to donate their time to
the cause. The main point is that we need landowners to be
preservation-partners.
I hope that HB 1960 and HB 1758 are read by everyone in Indiana interested
in historic preservation, and that we can convince our state legislators
that we need this kind of preservation incentive.
I will write again to Peggy Welch, who is my representative and also to Rep.
Lytle to thank them for sponsoring these bills and to work hard to combine
their best points.
Cheryl Ann Munson
e-mail, home: cheryl_ann_munson(a)hotmail.com
e-mail, office: munsonc(a)indiana.edu
phone, office: (812) 855-0528
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com
==== INPCRP Mailing List ====
Quote from William Gladstone (1809-1897), three-time Prime Minister of England
and Victorian contemporary of Benjamin Disraeli:
"Show me the manner in which a nation or community
cares for its dead and I will measure with mathematical
exactness the tender mercies of its people, their
respect for the laws of the land, and their loyalty
to high ideals."