 |
| Near Salem Church Fredericksburg, VA |
This morning, I came across this article about the new Civil War Gateway Visitors Center at Historic Tredegar Iron Works in Richmond, VA. The article discusses the history-making public-private partnership that has given birth to a new fundraising efforts for an interpretive center and interactive movie theater. The visitor will be immersed in history from the moment they walk through the door.
I couldn't help but be somewhat skeptical after reading this article. The Gettysburg Foundation is a nightmare definition of the term public-private partnership in the eyes of the public. Lack of transparency, constant leadership changes, and dealings with the park that some have mildly labeled as "shady" have marred the progress of the endeavor. Gettysburg in general seems to be bogged down in continuous controversy and the public-private partnership between the Foundation and the NPS has only exasperated an already tedious situation.
Rather than cast judgment on this new Richmond waterfront endeavor, I decided to dig a little deeper into the details of this PPP.
This project is a true public-private partnership in every sense of the word. By definition, a public-private partnership (PPP) is a government service or private business venture which is funded and operated through a partnership of government and one or more private sector companies." Just as the article states, "Three CEOs of Fortune 500 companies will lead the fundraising. In addition to Gottwald, they are John A. Luke Jr., chairman and CEO at MeadWestvaco, and Thomas F. Farrell II, chairman, president and CEO of Dominion Resources Inc." These men are leaders of huge economic engines in our market economy. They understand the risks, costs, and capital needed to make a business successful. Their goal is the greater good of both the Riverfront area and Civil War history. They are willing to put their reputations on the line to save a historic building and a key function of the Confederacy. I believe their intentions are honorable in every way. That Riverfront property would have been an easy development sale with minimal work. Yet, they chose history over development: a rare choice in the pave-it-over age.
The article also states "The campaign announced today has already secured pledges of $6.3 million from board members and riverfront neighbors of the center at Historic Tredegar." This statement is very true. Locals actually want and support this endeavor, including local riverfront businesses who are excited at the prospects of increased visitor traffic. In fact, local support is astounding. Herein lies the major difference between Tredegar PPP and Gettysburg PPP. Local support means everything, as does local opinion. Gettysburg's PPP was sullied by locals who still cry foul to this day regarding every aspect of the plan. Transparency and better communication on the part of the NPS and the Foundation would have made a huge difference in swaying some locals. There are others who see Gettysburg as a nuisance, and their opinion and diatribe will never change.
Tredegar should take a few lessons from the failures and successes of the Gettysburg PPP. While it is true that Gettysburg's PPP has been nothing short of a mess, there is still hope for future PPP's as a means of saving America's historic sites. In fact, it may eventually be our last hope of saving historic buildings not protected within the boundaries of a state or national military/battlefield park. Back in 1993, the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission warned us that PPP's were one of the few tools we have left to protect historic sites:
Public/Private Partnerships. Because of the number and extent of battlefield sites, because of the practical limitations in current Federal, state, and local budget policy, because land use regulation responsibilities are state and local responsibilities, and because the great majority of Civil War battlefield land is in private hands, a public/private partnership approach to battlefield preservation is virtually the only credible structure available at this time through which leadership can act.
The battlefield preservation activity cycle of research, field mapping, devising a protection plan, marketing the plan to legislatures and donors to raise funds, and implementing the management of a site according to the plan requires a breadth of expertise that few if any organizations in the nation possess. But many possess parts of what is needed. Government agencies often are focused on process and private groups on product; both are important. Private entities have the ability to respond rapidly to circumstances and stimulate volunteer efforts; public agencies are good at setting policy, conducting impartial research and technical evaluations, and regulating.
To successfully address 384 battlefields, governments must ensure that it is possible for such combinations to come together effectively. Traditional jurisdictional barriers can limit working relationships, but now there is a need for separate public and private agencies to form combinations to accomplish particular objectives, like protecting a battlefield, by engaging only their respective strengths and without being curtailed by their respective bureaucratic conventions and traditions.
If necessary, Congress should consider authorizing a public/private corporate structure that would facilitate these now-separate, but largely complementary, groups to come together as one or more functioning partnership entities to address specific preservation needs or specific sites. (From the 1993 CWSAC Report)
Like many of you, I thank God every day for the Civil War Trust, and their hard-working staff. They do the best they can with the resources they have available. However, we can and must do more.
And please, don't get me wrong. I appreciate the efforts of the NPS at Gettysburg and the Foundation for building a beautiful museum to house the thousands of precious artifacts they have in their possession. Compared to the house they were trying to use a museum, the new Visitors Center is better by leaps and bounds.
So what do you think? What are the odds that the PPP at Tredegar will be far different from the Gettysburg PPP? Was the CWSAC wrong in their assessment of the importance of PPP's? Give me your thoughts...
No comments:
Post a Comment