Letter writer Laetitia La Follette’s Dec. 13 letter to the editor [“Historic preservation and the Jones Library”] entirely misconstrued my recent column in the Gazette. My only point was that the town had disregarded its statutory obligations under federal and state historic preservation law, thereby jeopardizing $2.1 million in federal funding for the library project.
If the letter writer had taken the time to research the basics of Section 106, she would understand that the regulation is not intended to prohibit any changes whatsoever to historic properties. Instead, it prescribes a collaborative process meant to ensure that historic properties are treated with respect and sensitivity when they are renovated or modified.
Brona Simon, executive director of the Massachusetts Historical Commission, identified several major adverse effects of the Jones Library project and the town concurred with her findings. Section 106 requires there to be a negotiation between the Town, Consulting Parties, and the MHC to “resolve any adverse effects.”
The Section 106 review is meant to be conducted early in the planning stages so that adverse effects may be addressed as soon as possible. Had the town done this, it is likely that a satisfactory resolution could have been achieved well before the project went out to bid the first time, back in early 2024.
The letter writer and other supporters of the expansion/demolition project have labeled opponents of the project as “NIMBY.” However, this controversy has nothing to do with NIMBYism, which the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines as “opposition to the locating of something considered undesirable (such as a prison or incinerator) in one’s neighborhood.”
Actual facts make for a stronger argument than name-calling.
Mickey Rathbun
Amherst