History In The Way Of Progress?

The News Tribune this morning published this article about how the State Historic Preservation Officer and WSDOT are requiring a historic impact assessment before the Town of Steilacoom can be funded for its Rainier Street construction project.  According to the TNT, Steilacoom planners failed to build such an assessment into their engineering phase, resulting in costly delays and forcing a change in their Fourth of July Parade Route.

The TNT quotes Councilman Milt Davidson.  “It kind of irritates me…We had to go back and allocate more money. We lost time and money.”  But whose fault is that?  If you skim the TNT headline, clearly those crazy historic preservationists are to blame.

But, a loyal Exit133 reader notes, the headline is inaccurate and cliche.  “This isn’t a history problem – it’s a bureaucratic problem.”  Our understanding is that Federal grants always require local governments to review historic impacts.  It says so when one applies for funding.  Many of the grant request forms actually have a check box wherein you must indicate whether you have already or are planning to assess historic impacts.  Of course, if this is too onerous, a town can always turn down the money. 

So why does the TNT blame historic preservation in its headline?  To make a non-story seem like a controversy? Because it is the obvious conclusion to draw?  Maybe the cliche is too tempting – “history in the way of progress.”

“Town of Steilacoom bungles project planning, causing delays.”  But that isn’t too sexy, is it?

Link to The News Tribune