As most of you know the Outer Banks Conservationists were chosen to be
stewards of the Currituck Lighthouse through the application process under
the National Historic Lighthouse Preservation Act (NHLPA). An official in
the Dept. of Interior is stalling the process and is reportedly asking both
parties to reach a compromise or reapply. Mike Vogel, ALCC president, wrote
the following letter of protest:
Dear Mr. Manson
I am sending this message, in lieu of a more formal letter to ensure its
timeliness, to voice concern over the attack on a properly legislated
process that is embedded in the current controversy over Currituck
Lighthouse. As president of the American Lighthouse Coordinating Committee,
a national leadership council and forum for the lighthouse preservation
movement, I am disturbed by the erosion of carefully-considered lighthouse
disposition policies as passed by Congress in the National Lighthouse
Preservation Act of 2000 — an act, ironically, cosponsored by Mr. Jones.
This issue is being followed very carefully by the lighthouse preservation
community. We have supported, and continue to support, the Outer Banks
Conservationists in their effort to continue stewardship of the Currituck
Lighthouse, a role they have earned because of their proven track record
and their restoration of the structure. Beyond that, the community at large
also is dealing with mounting concern over the deterioration of towers
because of the impact of high-volume visitation, for which they were not
originally designed. Properly managed, visitation can be accommodated with
minimal negative impacts (vibration damage to stairs, scratch and corrosion
damage to increasingly old and fragile lenses, etc.). We believe proper
stewardship is much more likely to come from a preservation group, attuned
to the balance between conservation and display, than to a municipality or
tourism agency interested primarily in accommodating the maximum number of
visitors. We note with concern the opinion voiced by Mr. Jones, in this
case, that the county would be most capable of serving the many people who
want to visit the light. Even if that is not his or the county’s dominant
guiding philosophy, it offers no confidence that county stewardship would,
now or in the future, seek the best programs for both the tower and for
visitors — a role the Outer Banks organization already has proven it can
fill, admirably.
The Currituck question itself, though, is only part of this problem. There
is the more fundamental problem of erosion of the National Lighthouse
Preservation Act itself, which was designed to govern disposition of light
structures in a way that ensures best stewardship. Mr. Jones’ efforts,
while undoubtedly intended to serve his home constituents, amount to an
attack on that process — which, as the Congressional Quarterly’s weekly
magazine recently noted, is also an attack on a process he co-sponsored.
Consistency aside, the derailing of this process and its time deadlines is
disturbing on a national scale, not just a local one. You may see this as a
local dispute; we see it as a torpedo fired at a newly-launched ship. I
would at this time ask you to conform your decisions to the process and the
time frame of the NHLPA and its implementing guidelines. In our judgement,
that would mean confirming the existing stewardship of the OBC. Such a
decision would not only reaffirm legislated and stated national policy, but
also leave this specific lighthouse in the hands of an organization that
has restored, preserved, maintained and displayed it with an admirable
level of success — instead of turning it over to new management with no
lighthouse experience. This is not, at its core, an economic development or
tourism exploitation issue; those are worthy but ancillary aspects, to what
is in essence a mandate for ensuring the best possible preservation and
lasting appreciation of an historic treasure. That was the heart of the
NHLPA legislation, and we ask that it guide and rule your considerations now.