Mr.
McKay After letting the CP Meeting sink in for a few days, I offer the following: My active involvement began largely as a result of the local legislative initiative calling for redesignation of the Riverpark Place development area from Traditional Neighborhood to Downtown Form to allow higher structures and greater density. At the time, public and private statements were expressed to the developers that there was concern this would release them from previous historic preservation obligations of the 1996 MOA. In spite of assurances this would not be the case, it is exactly what is now happening. We must point out that the DOI Standards were in place all along as a result of the Falls Harbor negotiations and that this developer has conveniently ignored them through their "interpretation", subsequent local legislative initiatives, inappropriate and misleading marketing, and premature construction of support structures. To clarify our position: we did not intend to suggest at the meeting that the DOI Standards should not be included as the defining principle of the MOA, we only pointed out that this design is not in compliance. The fact that the SHPOs were either mute on this point (KY) or inclined to gut the essence of the 1996 MOA and the current Draft MOA by excluding the DOI Standards (IN) is troubling. Evidence suggests these developers intend to sidestep as many of the stipulations of the 1996 MOA as possible by using self imposed deadlines as grounds to cry foul when regulatory realities conflict with their project. It is clear in the documentation provided to us that the COE, in consultation with the SHPOs, believed the Draft MOA stipulations were appropriate. We would urge the COE to require the developers to abide by the Standards and if there is disagreement, the COE may terminate consultation and the ACHP must then resolve the issue as stipulated in 36 CFR 800.7. In response to Mr. Karem's comments on size and scale, it was not until late 1997, well after the original MOA and the flood, that there was talk of a single 20-story tower at Falls Harbor and this was never seriously proposed and surely never approved. Falls Harbor was planned and approved as 400-650 units in 8 - 10 story structures. ( see articles) This development is planned for 1500 units and 16 story structures. To say that this development is not significantly larger in scale than those previously proposed and approved is absurd. The shocking insensitivity the developers displayed towards the Tribes is also a revelation. This was evident in WDC attempts to exclude them from the process as well as the inappropriate remarks by Poe Company's representatives; "Who rounded the Indians up anyway... was it you? chuckle... chortle..." This speaks to the underlying attitude and is inappropriate to the extreme. It also indicates the developers have little understanding of the federally protected rights and inherent role the Tribes have in this process. If anything, this display should result in a strengthening, not the easing, of the requirements pertaining to Native American burials and that these restrictions be strictly enforced in the entire development area. We must also express dismay at the lack of respect the developers showed towards the COE Command and Staff. Even a schoolchild understands that when asking for permission from authority, a polite demeanor is in order... tantrums and intimidation are not. Coupled with the inappropriately premature measures this developer has taken so far, it seems they are operating on the premise: "forgiveness is easier to get than permission" and this is unacceptable There is also the bewildering fact that the developers seem to believe that at the point an MOA is signed, they can immediately begin construction. It is my understanding that 36 CFR 800 requires additional steps including: Coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act (800.8), Council (ACHP) review of Section 106 compliance (800.9), review of Special requirements for Protecting National Historic Landmarks (800.10) , reviews pertaining to Documentation standards (800.11), and that the process may be further prolonged by Emergency situations (800.12), Post-review discoveries (800.13), and also post Sec 106 necessities such as: Public Interest reviews, Rivers and Harbors Act review, and coordination with and review of certifications granted or pending with other local, state, and federal agencies. The developer should be informed they are delusional in their expectations and any expense, delay, or inconvenience this may cause them is not the fault of the COE, the SHPOs, the Tribes, the consulting parties, or anyone else other than the developers themselves. It is the developer's responsibility to adjust his plan in response to the regulatory requirements and other determinations in advance of the issuance of a DA, not the other way around. We urge the COE and the SHPO's to avoid weakening the 1996 MOA in any way. In fact, the record suggests it should be strengthened. The primary question remains, where is the benefit to the public in all of this? This development flies in the face of nearly every legislation, regulation, executive order, and common sense approach to floodplain management and historic preservation meant to protect the public interest. The fact that the developers stand to make huge sums of money from this development does not trump the requirement that the publics best interest play a leading role in any decision to grant or deny the required DA. As it stands now, the only persons dining at Mr. Karem's "banquet", are the WDC and Poe Companies. In return for this unique, extremely valuable, pristine land; the public gets a basketball court sized courtyard, very expensive condos that only the elite can afford, and an insane and inappropriately designed private marina. Considering the huge impact of this undertaking, the apparent disagreements between the consulting parties concerning the Standards, objections to determinations of no adverse effect within the BHD and the CHD, and documented adverse effects to the JHD; public education, hearings, and solicitation of further public comment as stipulated in 36 CFR 800.6 (4) is in order. . We would also ask that in addition to COE invitation for ACHP to join the consultation as required by 36 CFR 800.6 (1)(i), the consulting parties be given guidance as to the mechanism necessary to independently support this request as provided by 36 CFR 800.6(1)(C)(ii). We would further suggest that for obvious reasons, The Kentucky Native-American Heritage Commission and The Clifton Neighborhood Association should be invited to join the consultation as provided in 36 CFR 800.6(2). Thank you for your continuing consideration. Sincerely Bert A. Ribeiro |
|