I would agree with most of what Cheryl has offered here. However, while
property owners as preservation partners is an excellent concept, it is
my opinion that the process will be generally slower than it already is
if it becomes mandatory to follow a compliance procedure, costly survey
or state application process in order to put unrecorded or lost historic
cemeteries on the map.
It has always been my opinion, and I have written so here many times
before, that the first order of the preservation process should be to
delineate and geographically record these sites while they are still
somewhat intact and certainly before property owners magnanimously
decide to take advantage of a rather minimal tax incentive. There are
an estimated 20,000 cemeteries in Indiana at this time. The previous
legislation (in effect since July, 2000) sought to establish a statewide
cemetery database and placed this responsibility in the hands of the
DNR, Division of Historic Preservation and Archaeology. This program is
still on the launching pad. I find it hard to believe that further
regulation of the process, including an application by the landowner in
which he or she incurs survey costs, will have the desired effect. In
short, I don't buy the carrot metaphor and I wouldn't hold my breath
waiting for state certified land surveyors to donate their time and
manpower at the scale necessary to record these cemeteries in the
foreseeable future. In the meanwhile, the number of cemeteries will
very probably continue to dwindle at the same rate they are now.
Clearly, there is an urgent need to preserve Indiana's historic
archaeological sites and certainly the pioneer cemeteries should be
counted among these. And perhaps the preservation partner concept will
be successful on certain kinds of historically significant sites. State
and federal programs with guidelines that serve to protect and preserve
all cultural resources, even those on private property, are necessary if
we don't want to see all of these sites, and the historical information
they contain, paved over or turned into a new mall, housing development
or coal mine.
However, it may not be wise to curtail comprehensive recording of all
cemeteries in order to merge two similar pieces of legislation that rely
on the stronger language necessary in an historic preservation strategy.
Reducing the number of cemeteries that are recorded and managed through
bureaucratic red tape defeats the purpose. This is, of course, my
opinion and it is based on my somewhat limited experience in dealing
with rural landowners who have cemeteries on their property. There are
surely others here who have been working on this problem far longer than
I have, and I'm reasonably confident that they too have arrived at this
same conclusion.
Many smaller cemeteries are on agricultural property and most farmers
are cooperative to some degree; although, there are additional issues
when it comes to preserving and fencing cemeteries on farm land
including weed & thistle control, livestock management, crop use and
perhaps others that aren't being considered. I haven't met a single
farmer who made an indication that they were willing to undergo any
financial burden to restore or preserve a long lost cemetery on their
back forty.
With all that said, I'm for both legislative acts conceptually but I
would urge a strong lobby for a clear distinction that permits recording
these cemeteries in the most expeditious fashion; like starting NOW with
a program to define and record all Indiana cemeteries.
Rich Green
Historic Archaeological Research
4338 Hadley Court
West Lafayette, IN 47906
Office: (765) 464-8735
Home: (765) 464-8095
http://www.har-indy.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cheryl Ann Munson" <cheryl_ann_munson(a)hotmail.com>
To: <INPCRP-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 9:54 PM
Subject: [INPCRP] HB 1960 and 1758, for Classified Cemeteries and
Classified Historic Sites
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."