This sign-on letter follows an earlier public comment from the League and our Preservation Colleagues, which you can find here. For a PDF of the December 13 letter, click here.

December 13, 2024
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Sarah Bronin, Chair
401 F Street NW, Suite 308
Washington, DC 20001

Dear Chair Bronin:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the revised Program Comment on Certain Housing, Building, and Transportation Activities. On behalf of the undersigned New York-based preservation nonprofit organizations, the Preservation Colleagues network, the Preservation League of New York State respectfully submits the following comments.

We appreciate that many of our concerns were addressed and that the document is easier to follow. We have no major concerns with the processes and activities covered under Appendix A of the revised Program Comment.

However, we remain concerned that State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) are essentially cut out of the Section 106 process for any activities covered under Appendix B. We appreciate the gesture of adding the option for federal agencies to consult with the relevant SHPO (Appendix B, Section 1) but this is unlikely to occur in practice. By not consulting with SHPO, federal agencies and/or their consultants are left with little accountability and are left to make their own determinations regarding National Register eligibility.

The lack of notification requirements remains a concern as well. With respect to Dispute Resolution (Section VI), how and when would a member of the public, local government, SHPO, or other entity become aware of an undertaking? Without consultation requirements, how will there be any consulting parties?

Finally, the lack of notification requirements and the lack of SHPO input could result in the intentional or unintentional loss of historic resources and/or character defining features that have not yet been identified in surveys or listed in the National Register. This could disproportionately impact historically marginalized communities, which are generally less well documented.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Adirondack Architectural Heritage, Erin Tobin, Executive Director
Friends of the Upper East Side Historic Districts, Nuha Ansari, Executive Director
Historic Albany Foundation, Pamela Howard, Executive Director
Historic Districts Council, Frampton Tolbert, Executive Director
Historic Ithaca, Susan Holland, Executive Director
Landmark Society of Western New York, Wayne Goodman, Executive Director
New York Landmarks Conservancy, Peg Breen, President
Preservation Association of Central New York, Nicole M. Fragnito, Executive Director
Preservation Buffalo Niagara, Bernice Radle, Executive Director
Preservation League of New York State, Jay DiLorenzo, President
Preservation Long Island, Tara Cubie, Preservation Director
Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation, Samantha Bosshart, Executive Director
TAP Inc., Barb Nelson, AIA, Executive Director
Village Preservation, Andrew Berman, Executive Director

The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) is developing a Program Comment on Accessible, Climate-Resilient, Connected Communities that aims to provide federal agencies with an alternate way to comply with their responsibilities under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. In doing so, ACHP invited public comment on their proposal. Along with 13 of our Preservation Colleague organizations across the state, the following letter was sent to ACHP in response to their proposed Program Comment on Accessible, Climate-Resilient and Connected Communities. Click here for a PDF of this letter.

---

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Sarah Bronin, Chair
401 F Street NW, Suite 308
Washington, DC 20001

Dear Chair Bronin:

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft Program Comment on Accessible, Climate-Resilient and Connected Communities. On behalf of the undersigned New York-based preservation nonprofit organizations, the Preservation Colleagues network, we respectfully submit the following comments.

We recognize the need to streamline the Section 106 consultation process in certain areas and appreciate that the ACHP is focusing on housing and climate. As preservation organizations, we advocate for affordable housing projects, climate resilience and sustainability in the built environment, and transportation alternatives. It is imperative that the preservation movement promote these efforts and communicate the essential role that preservation plays in advancing more resilient and equitable communities.

However, we are concerned that the draft Program Comment is too broad in scope and places too much responsibility on federal agencies and/or their consultants to review their own undertakings. As such, it runs counter to the intent of the National Historic Preservation Act and risks irreparably harming the nation’s historic resources. Specific comments are as follows:

• We support streamlining the Section 106 process and agree that many of the project types included in the Program Comment are sensible. Projects that are unlikely to impact historic resources—such as electrifying appliances, replacing non-historic playground equipment, or replacing asphalt surfacing, to name a few—should indeed be exempted from the standard Section 106 review process.

• For projects with potential adverse effects, we do not support removing SHPO (and other consulting parties) from the Section 106 process. Federal agencies should not be given full decision-making power over their own projects. Many of the project types in the Program Comment require nuanced consideration by an experienced preservation professional (or a person recognized by the relevant Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian Organization to have expertise, where appropriate). SHPO staff provide objective assessment and have extensive experience reviewing potential impacts and applying the SOI Standards. For many project types, they are best suited—alongside design professionals and project sponsors— to explore creative solutions that accomplish the dual goals of preserving character defining features while also providing affordable housing and/or advancing climate goals.

• We want to see a re-evaluation of project types that would be covered by the Program Comment, in consultation with SHPO staff. Of particular concern is the exemption of building exteriors, including windows, doors, and the use of substitute materials. Both primary and secondary elevations should remain subject to the standard Section 106 process.

• We recommend a revision to the definition of housing to support the preservation and production of affordable housing. The current definition makes no mention of affordability; presumably the Program Comment could apply to any undertaking that involves housing, regardless of ownership or affordability.

• The lack of notification requirements is concerning and could result in the intentional or unintentional loss of historic resources and/or character defining features that have not yet been identified in surveys or listed in the National Register. This could disproportionately impact historically marginalized communities, which are generally less well documented.

• We also want to see a shorter initial duration of the Program Comment and do not support unilateral extension of the duration by the Chair.

• We strongly recommend more robust reporting requirements, including an annual report from participating federal agencies of all undertakings covered by the Program Comment, particularly in the first years that the Program Comment is in effect. Reporting should include in-depth evaluation by ACHP with input from preservation partners such as SHPOs and nonprofit preservation organizations.

• Overall, we are concerned that the broad scope of this Program Comment sends the message that preservation is an obstacle to affordable housing and climate solutions. Modern preservation best practices actively promote both. Often, the treatment that meets the SOI Standards is, in the long term, the more economical and sustainable treatment and provides building occupants with an enhanced quality of life.

While we support streamlining the Section 106 process in principle and support many of the exemptions included in the Program Comment, we do not believe that the current draft achieves an equitable balance between streamlining review processes, protecting historic resources, and providing public input in federal undertakings. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Adirondack Architectural Heritage, Erin Tobin, Executive Director
Friends of the Upper East Side Historic Districts, Nuha Ansari, Executive Director
Historic Albany Foundation, Pamela Howard, Executive Director
Historic Districts Council, Frampton Tolbert, Executive Director
Historic Ithaca, Susan Holland, Executive Director
Landmark Society of Western New York, Wayne Goodman, Executive Director
New York Landmarks Conservancy, Peg Breen, President
Preservation Association of Central New York, Nicole M. Fragnito, Executive Director
Preservation Buffalo Niagara, Bernice Radle, Executive Director
Preservation League of New York State, Jay DiLorenzo, President
Preservation Long Island, Tara Cubie, Preservation Director
Saratoga Springs Preservation Foundation, Samantha Bosshart, Executive Director
TAP Inc., Barb Nelson, AIA, Executive Director
Village Preservation, Andrew Berman, Executive Director

This advocacy alert is reposted from The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.

America is suffering from a massive shortage of available housing units, and the crisis is particularly acute regarding affordable housing. Reusing existing buildings is integral to addressing this critical problem, and - since about 40 percent of America’s buildings are at least 50 years old - rehabilitating historic housing and adapting historic buildings not originally built for housing is essential. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation is developing a policy statement on housing and historic preservation to provide expert advice to a wide range of stakeholders on the role that historic preservation can play in alleviating the housing crisis.

A draft of the policy statement on housing and historic preservation is available for public comment. Comments must be submitted in writing by 5 p.m. on November 11, 2023, by emailing housing@achp.gov. Comments received will be considered as the draft policy statement is finalized. (All comments are subject to the Freedom of Information Act and/or may be made public.)

The draft policy statement provides advice to all levels of government, community groups, nonprofit organizations, developers, and others in the private sector regarding the importance of: gathering information relating to historic preservation and housing; reusing historic buildings; accelerating project permitting and environmental review; education; and collaboration.

The draft policy statement builds upon and incorporates key principles of the ACHP’s 2007 Affordable Housing and Historic Preservation Policy Statement, which focuses principally on review of affordable housing projects under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Portions of the 2007 policy statement appear (with revisions) in Policy Principle #9 of the current draft.

This Advocacy Update has been reposted from our colleagues at Preservation Action.

Last month, Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA) and Rep. Brian Higgins (D-NY) introduced the Neighborhood Homes Investment Act (H.R. 3940, S. 657) in the House. Companion legislation was introduced in the Senate earlier this year. This bill would create a federal tax credit to encourage revitalization of distressed homes. In many parts of the country, the cost of purchasing and renovating a home is greater than the value of the home's sale price. The bill would create a tax credit to cover the cost between building or rehabilitating a home in these areas and the price at which they can be sold, up to 35% of the total development cost. Similar legislation was introduced during the last Congress and garnered significant bipartisan support.

The bill focuses on communities with the greatest need, by targeting distressed areas. This includes neighborhoods with high poverty rates, incomes below the area median income; and home values that are below the metro or state median value. The Neighborhood Homes Coalition put together an interactive map where you can see what neighborhoods could qualify for funding. The Coalition estimates that the bill could lead to 500,000 homes over 10 years being rehabilitated or constructed.

This legislation has the potential to significantly assist owners of historic and older homes. Preservation Action will continue to monitor this important legislation.

This advocacy alert is reposted from our colleagues at Preservation Action 

Urgent action is needed to advance the National Heritage Area Act of 2021 (S. 1942, H.R. 1316). This important bill would create a much-needed uniform system to reauthorize National Heritage Areas, allocate standard funding, and provide universal standards to how current and future National Heritage Areas (NHAs) are managed and designated. This bill would reauthorize and provide certainty for the 55 current NHAs, including reauthorizing 30 NHAs that are in immediate need and establish 5 new ones. NHAs produce nearly $13 billion in annual economic impact and every dollar in federal funding is matched by an average of $5.50 from other funding sources.

The National Heritage Area Act was advanced by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee with strong, bipartisan support and was added to the Senate Calendar for the current legislative session. This does not mean the Senate will get to it and time is running out, as Congress needs to take action before the end of the year.

Take action! Urge your Representative and Senators to support the National Heritage Area Act and include it as part of any omnibus package. Check out the Alliance of National Heritage Areas to learn more about National Heritage Areas and this important bill. 

Cross-posted from our colleagues at the National Trust Community Investment Corporation, a subsidiary of the National Trust for Historic Preservation

Thank you to all the advocates who reached out to congressional offices, led local meetings, and hosted tours of HTC projects in August! At this critical time, we continue to gain support for the HTC-GO, with 97 House members and 14 Senators cosponsoring the bill. We are steadily approaching our goal of 100 cosponsors in the House and 20 cosponsors in the Senate!

As the 117th Congress winds down, members of Congress will head home in October ahead of the November elections. Depending on the outcome of the elections, Congress will determine whether it will be an active lame-duck session or if it will limit activity to organizing for the new Congress. Scores of federal tax incentives have expired or will expire in 2022, resulting in growing interest from Republicans and Democrats to extend these tax provisions.

Year-end legislation may be a vehicle for HTC improvements. Building support for the HTC-GO now will pave a path for success when year-end legislative vehicles begin to move, possibly during a lame-duck session of Congress.

With about seven remaining weeks until the election, advocates are encouraged to do the following:

1. Use the National Trust E-advocacy tool to contact offices to request cosponsorship of the Historic Tax Credit Growth and Opportunity Act (HTC-GO, HR 2294/S. 2266)

2. Look for opportunities to meet with legislators when they are back home in October. Please connect with Senators and Representatives back home to request cosponsorship of HTC-GO. We encourage you to safely attend upcoming political events and gatherings to discuss the HTC-GO bill. As many did in August, you can also proactively schedule a time to meet with legislators for a meeting or a tour of a local HTC project, especially projects that will become easier to undertake with the HTC if the proposed changes are enacted.

Take Action:

1. Request cosponsorship through the National Trust for Historic Preservation's E-Advocacy tool.

2. Review the HTC-GO fact sheets to stay informed:

   1. House HTC-GO (HR 2294) Fact Sheet

   2. Senate HTC-GO (S. 2266) Fact Sheet

3. Search local and political events or join a local political party's email list to learn about events your members of Congress might be attending.

4. Invite your members of Congress to tour successful historic preservation projects. Take a look at the National Trust's guide to arranging a site visit.

5. Email Michael Phillips (mphillips@ntcic.com) to receive the schedulers' email addresses for your members of Congress and for additional assistance in making your request.

6. Check to see if your members of Congress have already cosponsored:

   1. House HTC-GO Cosponsors

   2. Senate HTC-GO Cosponsors

Talking Points for Discussions with your Members of Congress:

• "Now is the time to strengthen this proven incentive to address the slowdown and challenges in rehabilitation projects across the country."

• "Would you please cosponsor House Bill H.R. 2294/Senate Bill S. 2266-The Historic Tax Credit Growth and Opportunity Act (HTC-GO) and work to include these provisions in year-end legislation?" If the legislator has already cosponsored the bill, thank them instead of asking them to cosponsor.

• Explain how enacting these provisions would benefit your community.

  • For HTC-GO provision talking points, click here.

• Please share the "State of the Historic Rehabilitation Industry" and either the House HTC-GO Fact Sheet or the Senate HTC-GO Fact Sheet as printed handouts or links/attachments as a follow-up.

Resources

• HTC State Maps and Project Lists

Thank you for your advocacy! For assistance in contacting the offices of your members of Congress, please contact us at the email addresses below.

Mike Phillips mphillips@ntcic.com
Shaw Sprague ssprague@savingplaces.org
Patrick Robertson probertson@confluencegr.com

Shared from our colleagues at Preservation Action:

Preservation Action is excited announce the launch of our 2022 Congressional Candidate Historic Preservation Survey. For the fourth time, Preservation Action is surveying U.S House and Senate candidates across the country to gauge support of key national preservation programs and policies. We plan to share the results of the survey widely before the Midterm elections in November. We conducted a candidate survey prior to the 2016, 2018, and 2020 elections and received hundreds of responses. We are excited to hear from even more candidates this year and will be working with our network of state and local preservation organizations to help spread the word.

The goal of the survey is multi-faceted; to educate congressional candidates on the federal historic preservation program, gauge their level of support for critically important preservation programs and policies, educate PA members and supporters on the candidates positions and gain useful insights into congressional candidates background with historic preservation. Using the results of our Grassroots Survey as a guide, the survey asks the following questions:

1. Do you support stable and robust funding for the Historic Preservation Fund?

2. Would you support efforts to permanently reauthorize and enhance the Historic Preservation Fund?

3. Would you support efforts to update the Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit (HTC) program?

4. Would you support policies that assure the impact to historic and cultural resources continue to be considered in the federal project planning process?

5. Does historic preservation play an important role in your state/district? How so? Describe any personal connections to historic preservation or historic sites. Is there a specific historic place in your district that is important to you and your constituents?

Help support this important work by following up with congressional candidates in your state, urging them to complete Preservation Action’s 2022 Congressional Candidate Survey. A copy of the survey and letter are available here. A list of contact information for congressional candidates (divided by state) is available here. Candidates that have already responded are highlighted in yellow.

This Advocacy Alert comes from Olmsted200. Through events, education, and advocacy at the local and national levels, Olmsted 200 ensures that Frederick Law Olmsted’s legacy lives on by renewing public and policy commitments to the preservation and maintenance of our historic parks and places.

---

A Resolution to honor Frederick Law Olmsted's 200th birthday has been introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI-12) and Rep. French Hill (R-AR-2).

The National Association for Olmsted Parks and Olmsted 200's nine other founding partners are working hard in 2022 to advance the life, work, and legacy of Frederick Law Olmsted during the 200th anniversary of his birth.

Resolution 1013, introduced with bi-partisan support, acknowledges Olmsted’s immense contributions to the nation and provides an opportunity for legislators to come together to recognize and renew attention to Olmsted’s enduring legacy and his advocacy of parks for all people.

But we need your help! Please contact your Representative to become a sponsor. This is a time-sensitive matter. To find your Representative, click here or use ASLA's form letter here. To co-sponsor, please have your Representative reach out to Dylan Frost at dylan.frost@mail.house.gov with Rep. Hill or Kevin Rambosk at kevin.rambosk@mail.house.gov with Rep. Dingell.

Olmsted200 is also encouraging Representatives to introduce remarks into the Congressional Record for Olmsted's birthday on April 26. You can utilize their template proclamation, adding projects in your region or state. To identify local projects, go to OlmstedOnline.org and use the advance search feature. You can also find projects listed on Wikipedia.

The Preservation League was pleased to join our colleagues from the New York State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the New York Landmarks Conservancy to make up the New York delegation for Federal Preservation Advocacy Week, March 7-11. Our group held 14 meetings with Congressional and Senate staff, and we hope to convene additional meetings in coming weeks.

Like our peers from over 40 other states, plus Guam and the Federated States of Micronesia, we conveyed three main requests in our meetings. We asked legislators to:

1. Sign a letter in support of a $200 million appropriation for the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) appropriation for Fiscal Year 2023. The HPF, which provides funding for SHPOs, Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs), and numerous grant programs, has been authorized at $150 million since it was established in 1976. From 2009 to 2021, the annual appropriation for the HPF ranged from $54 million to $153 million. The FY 2022 appropriation, announced during Advocacy Week when the appropriations bill for the current fiscal year was finally passed, is the highest ever at $173 million, including about $74 million to support the work of SHPOs and THPOs, with the rest dedicated to specific grants and preservation projects.

2. Co-sponsor H.R. 6589, the Historic Preservation Enhancement Act, recently introduced by Representatives Teresa Leger Fernandez and Earl Blumenauer. This bill permanently authorizes the Historic Preservation Fund, increases its authorization from $150 million to $300 million, and ensures $300 million is appropriated for the HPF each year. This represents a significant, much-needed improvement to the HPF. This new legislation has a handful of co-sponsors so far, including Congressman Joseph Morelle from New York’s 25th district. Preservation advocates have long asked for an increase in the HPF to reflect the growing workload of SHPOs and THPOs. The increase reflected in the FY2022 appropriation is welcome news, and signals the importance of raising the authorization so that this year’s bump won’t be an anomaly. The recently passed infrastructure bill creates an urgent need to increase SHPO and THPO funding, as staff face an imminent influx of billions of dollars’ worth of new construction projects that will require review.

3. Co-sponsor H.R. 2294, the Historic Tax Credit Growth and Opportunity Act of 2021 (“HTC-GO”), introduced last year by Representative Earl Blumenauer. This bill proposes several improvements to the federal historic tax credit program, including a temporary increase to a 30% credit for all projects, and a permanent increase to 30% for projects under $2.5 million, plus other changes that will make the credit more appealing to investors and easier for nonprofit organizations to use. H.R. 2294 has bipartisan support, including the support of seven Congresspeople from New York so far: Representatives Higgins, Katko, Delgado, Suozzi, Morelle, Stefanik, and Tenney. Senator Gillibrand is a co-sponsor of a similar bill in the Senate, S.2266. In our meetings we thanked those who are already co-sponsors, and asked others to join them.

Federal Advocacy Week is over, but advocacy for preservation at the federal level continues! Please contact your Congressperson and ask them to sign on to Representative Blumenauer’s letter in support of the annual HPF appropriation and co-sponsor H.R. 6589 (or in Congressman Morelle’s case, thank him for his co-sponsorship). If they are already a co-sponsor of H.R. 2294 thank them for their support; if not, please ask them to co-sponsor it. Your calls, which take just a few minutes, really do make a difference in demonstrating broad support for these important bills.

This news release is cross-posted from nps.gov.

---

Federal historic preservation tax incentives generated $7 billion in GDP and 122,000 jobs in 2020

Program has generated $195.2 billion in GDP since 1978

News Release Date: December 22, 2021
Contact: NewsMedia@nps.gov

WASHINGTON - According to the Rutgers University’s Center for Urban Policy Research, the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives Program contributed more than $13.8 billion in output in terms of goods and services to the U.S. economy, generated approximately 122,000 jobs, and added an overall $7 billion in gross domestic product (GDP) in fiscal year 2020. The program is administered by the National Park Service (NPS) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), in partnership with State Historic Preservation Offices. 

“Historic preservation efforts do more than maintain and showcase our nation’s history – they also support community revitalization, job creation, affordable housing, and small businesses, particularly in historically marginalized communities whose histories are integral to America’s story,” said Secretary Deb Haaland. “I am proud of the Department’s efforts to preserve our special places and ensure that future generations can learn about the rich history of every community.”

"Investments in the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives Program have extensive benefits to the national economy, generating more than $195.2 billion in GDP since 1978. This incredible federal/state partnership has enabled more than 46,000 preservation and rehabilitation projects while revitalizing communities across the country,” said NPS Director Chuck Sams.

The Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives Program, commonly known as the Historic Tax Credit, provides a 20% federal tax credit to property owners who undertake a substantial rehabilitation of a historic building in a commercial or other income-producing use while maintaining its historic character.

The NPS certifies that a building is historic, and therefore eligible for the program, and that the rehabilitation preserves the building’s historic character. The IRS is responsible for administering the other aspects of the tax credit under the Internal Revenue Code. The tax incentives program has helped to revive abandoned or underutilized schools, warehouses, factories, churches, retail stores, apartments, hotels, houses, agricultural buildings, offices, and other buildings across the country, and, in turn, has helped support the redevelopment of entire downtowns and neighborhoods. Seventeen percent of the projects certified in Fiscal Year 2020 were located in communities of less than 25,000 people.

According to this year’s report, about half of the certified rehabilitation projects were located in low- and moderate-income areas and three-quarters of all projects were in economically distressed areas. Program-related investments created approximately 122,000 jobs, including 42,000 jobs in construction and 27,000 jobs in manufacturing, and generated $2.3 billion in construction and $2.0 billion in manufacturing respectively. As a result of both direct and multiplier effects, and due to the interconnectedness of the national economy, sectors not immediately associated with historic rehabilitation, such as agriculture, mining, transportation, and public utilities, benefited as well.

State Historic Preservation Offices are the first point of contact for information and guidance for property owners interested in the program, and the NPS works closely with them in the administration of the program. A breakdown by state of the economic impacts and other program information is included in the reports.

Fiscal Year 2020 Highlights and Reports

• Annual Report on the Economic Impact of the Federal Historic Tax Credit for Fiscal Year 2020

• Federal Tax Incentives for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2020

Rehabilitation in Action

Forty-Four & Sixty-Six Service Station, Boise, Idaho | Photo credit: Dan Everhart

Forty-Four & Sixty-Six Service Station (Boise, Idaho)
Instead of demolition and sale of the land to the highest bidder, owners of the Forty-Four & Sixty-Six Service Station decided to preserve and rehabilitate the unique mid-century building for a future tenant who would appreciate the historic character of the building and sensitively adapt it to a modern use. The rehabilitation cost approximately $166,364 and received the 2020 Orchid Award for Excellence in Historic Preservation from Preservation Idaho.

Fiscal Year 2020 Highlights

Rehabilitated Housing Units

• Rehabilitated new or existing housing units: 16,624

• Low- and moderate-income housing units: 5,889

Economic Benefit

• Total estimated rehabilitation investment (Qualified Rehabilitation Expenditures): $6.5 billion

• Historic rehabilitation projects certified: 989

• Estimated total jobs created: 122,000

• Output (Goods and Services): $13.8 billion

• Gross domestic product: $7 billion

• Income created: $5.2 billion

www.nps.gov

About the National Park Service. More than 20,000 National Park Service employees care for America's 423 national parks and work with communities across the nation to help preserve local history and create close-to-home recreational opportunities. Learn more at www.nps.gov, and on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube.