Liberals Seek To “Set The Record Straight” On National Heritage Land Grab, End Up Telling More Lies

The Prairie Independent is some sort of a liberal magazine here in North Dakota written by liberals for liberals. So it’s not surprising that, smarting from revelations about his deceptions and mistreatment of land owners, State Senator Tracy Potter would flee to their partisan arms for defense. The problem is that in his own defense Potter keeps telling the same old, same old lies.
In the December issue of this “magazine” (which you can read here) Potter is interviewed about the 4.7 million acre National Heritage Area land grab, and as you might expect he blames all the very real problems with that land grab (land owners not being notified, the grab being much larger in scope than he’ll admit, the fact that he lied to congress and lobbied with taxpayer dollars, etc.) on “right wing blogs” (read: this one), etc.
What was particularly of interest was Potter’s spin on his deceitful testimony before Congress:

PI: You have been accused of misleading Congress into passing this law. How do you respond?
TP: This gets my NPL goat. First off, I only wish I was skillful enough to pass a federal law. I have enough trouble passing bills in the North Dakota Senate, let alone in DC.
The fact is that we told Congress precisely the truth about the process of developing the area, how our former executive director Amy Mossett spoke to city and county commissions, service clubs and heritage tourism organizations. We presented a Feasibility Study containing the actual letters of support from each of the county commissions and other groups. We didn’t characterize their support – we copied Congress with their actual letters. In questioning by the Senate committee, I carefully explained about how open commission meetings are in our state and how some people did have questions, which were answered, about protections for private property owners. No one was misled.

No one was misled? I beg to differ. The North Dakota Policy Council made a thorough search of minutes for the county commission meetings, etc. in question and found no evidence of Potter telling them that their land was going to be designated. A feasibility study? Yes. But a feasibility study isn’t the same thing as the land being designated. Land owners just woke up one day and found that their land was caught up in this land designation without anyone having bothered to ask their opinion of the matter or even notify them.
That is the very definition of being “misled.”
But you don’t have to take my word for it. According to the testimony before Congress of Katherine H. Stevenson, acting assistant director of the National Park Service, Potter and his Northern Plains Heritage Foundation did not meet the requirements for public involvement in the land designation.

While the Department appreciates the historic, cultural and natural features of the area, the Department does not support S. 2098. The feasibility study produced by the Northern Plains Heritage Foundation did not meet all of the criteria for designation as a national heritage area. It did not include the existence of significant levels of public involvement and support and the local commitments necessary for successful planning and implementation of a heritage area. Without further dialog with residents in the region and the support of current living descendents, we are concerned that the Heritage Area would not be poised for success and a sustainable future.

And as for these letters from local organizations in support of Potter, they were hardly unanimous in their support and wanted more public input before the land was designated:

The NPHF met with the commissions and several civic organizations to discuss the idea of a National Heritage Area designation in 2005 and 2006. However, not all five county commissions Potter referred to offered up support for the designation, as letters that appear in the feasibility study and meetings minutes show. (Click HERE and HERE to view the letters.)
“The McLean County Board of Commissioners are looking forward to the public meetings and hearing the results of the public comments,” County Commission Chairman Ron Krebsbach wrote in January 2006. According to the McLean County auditor Leslie Korgel, McLean County did not have a public hearing and only approved the feasibility study.
Burleigh County Commission meeting minutes (Page 2) from January 6, 2006, note that the NPHF explained the proposed NHA and asked for support for the study. The minutes do not note a public hearing was held and do not note that the actual designation was supported.

Clearly, Potter is lying about the level of support this land designation has. And that’s not the only lie Potter told in this interview:

PI: Right-wing blogs have called this a federal land grab, but you say there is no land being grabbed. How is a heritage area different from a national park?
TP: The difference is that National Parks and National Historic Sites are solid, real, boots-on-the-ground kinds of things. They have a physical boundary and within that boundary there is no private activity – no businesses, no residences. But National Heritage Areas are meant to create economic activity and create jobs. They don’t regulate anyone, but they offer marketing and financial support for business development related to heritage tourism.
The best example I can give for how heritage areas are not scary is this – the entire state of Tennessee is a heritage area. Economic activity continues there without restriction, wind towers go up, coal gets dug, farmers farm and people live their lives and most of them probably don’t even know that they’re living in a heritage area. The people who do know are investing federal money into attracting tourists to the sites of Tennessee’s Civil War battles.

First, Potter’s claim that Tennessee has had no problems with its Heritage Area designation (memo to Potter: The entire state of Tennessee is not designated as a NHA) is patently false. A couple of months back I invited Tom DeWeese of the American Policy Center onto my radio show to talk about National Heritage Areas in Tennessee, and the story he told of problems in that state are the polar opposite of what Potter is claiming. Mr. DeWeese was active in opposing NHA designations in Tennessee and told me, by way of illustrating how many problems the NHA’s there have caused, of a land owner there who wasn’t allowed to remodel his home because it was in a National Heritage Area land designation. You can listen to my interview with Mr. DeWeese here.
Second, the idea that the Northern Plains Heritage Foundation can’t regulate anyone’s land is technically true. But the foundation will be developing a “management plan” for this land. And they’ll then be getting millions of dollars from the federal government to implement that plan. And if landowners don’t like the plan they’re going to have to show up at every county commission meeting, every municipal meeting and every township meeting and oppose the NPHF who will be playing ball with their tax dollars.
A good deal for Potter and his cronies, but hardly fair to the average land owner.