Neary-Sighted

Apparently she and her roommates in Hollywood suffered a burglary, and it made the news. That's her on the far right in this picture. One of these days I'll have to dig out the news story and find it why it was worthy of news coverage (I'm guessing because a female model was a co-defendant, and the victims were all young photogenic women. The news industry in 1951 was the same as it is today)

Something I find fascinating about the service called Twitter is that I can send out those messages right from the stadium.

The final picture is a quick shot I grabbed when I stepped away from the dedication ceremony in Fort Steilacoom Park. Mayor Doug Richardson is commenting on some new signs installed in the park to provide visitors with information about the park and the people who lived here before us. I've had a passion for these signs for a couple years now, and made a few remarks about the value of history as viewed within a park. For more information, see one of the signs here and if you've got time, click here for more signs either already established or planned to interpret the park.

Today's post is about historic preservation. Some of you may recall I was the first chairman of Lakewood's Landmarks and Heritage Advisory Board. I wanted to share a story of how something I look forward to every year was rather sour this year.

One very common strategy of groups building attention for historic properties is to issue annual lists that get media and other attention. This year's list of Most Endangered Properties from the Washington Trust for Historic Preservation is an odd one. There don't seem to be any endangered buildings anywhere owned by the state or federal governments.There aren't any endangered buildings owned by local governments with the exception of Wilkeson. There also don't seem to be any endangered buildings in Seattle, Spokane, Everett or Tacoma. Everyone in those cities must be doing a great job preserving history. Or maybe there's more to the story.

Obviously there are endangered buildings in those places. The Trust has no problem telling private property owners of buildings in a couple communities on the 2010 list what to do, but doesn't seem to be addressing the private property owners' local, state and federal governments. How odd.

It's more regretful because a student group from Bellarmine Prep submitted three historic buildings on the grounds of Western State Hospital for consideration on this year's list. There's a 1901 bakery, a 1907 morgue and then the elegant 1924 chapel building that you can see from Steilacoom Boulevard. Those buildings are endangered by either neglect or the state's longterm plans for the hospital. I feel some ownership of these as endangered properties because I suggested the project to the student group which included my son, who'll be graduating from Bellermine on Sunday.

The state government wants those buildings gone. I'd say there should be more discussion. The history of Lakewood is important. The hospital is part of the Fort Steilacoom district in the National Register of Historic Places. Western State Hospital is important. Even more important is the history of mental health care in Washington state and America. The Trust's snubbing of Western State history and the history of mental health care seems every bit as odd as its failure to call government to responsibility.

So that got me thinking and researching. One clue: the last federal tax Form 990 I could find on the Washington Trust said in the year 2008, it collected $54,000 from state government and $24,600 from memberships. Let's remember that factoid for a bit later.

I first wrote and pictured the Western State buildings in 2008. Not much has changed. Now, you can build a reasonable argument that the state should knock those buildings down anytime. You can argue that the state should not pay any money for historic buildings. You can argue that their role of educating youth and others of our heritage is not worth the money. I'd respect that point of view though I'd disagree. This state spends a lot of money on education, since education is one of the fundamental responsibilities of our publicly funded school system. So the state budget is clearly not just for essential services like the state patrol. But whatever your philosophy on public spending for education, it sure seems to me that anyone who sees a building like the one pictured above would think that building is endangered. And that picture is from 2008 so things have only gotten worse.

Why the Washington Trust does not think the building pictured above is endangered can only speak to motives I'll just guess at. It's just guessing. I can only be pretty sure those motives have nothing to do with historic preservation.

I've asked the National Trust for Historic Preservation how they measure the effectiveness of state trusts. I don't think I'll hold my breath for an answer. This is a recession. Historic preservation is a priority to limited numbers of people. I'll catch some hell for criticizing anyone in "the movement." Who dares ask government to spend money on historic buildings and the history of the people who worked or suffered in them? I guess the Trust can ask private property owners to do that since unlike state government, they are faceless to us. If we do any little thing on behalf of historic preservation, isn't that good enough? Who else are we going to donate our historic preservation dollars to? Shouldn't Walter be kissing the state for giving the Trust $54,000 in 2008?

My criticism is somewhat unfortunate because the public face of the Trust is an employee there named Chris Moore, who is great. He's an advocate for historic preservation, and on a personal note, he showed enormous patience helping the student group with that application. He works directly with property owners. This isn't about the Trust's other projects. This is about the 2010 list of most endangered properties. The listing shows all the marks of being a committee effort.

This has the feeling more of something decided by a governing board of directors that is concerned with the interests of a large donor - state government - and unconcerned about preservation's big picture. Eh, you know, running a nonprofit is a lot of work: you co-sponsor some conferences, some workshops, you administer some programs for the state, you sit in a warm cozy room with other board members, so you've done something, and at some point in any effort someone has to think they've done enough.

Actually sitting back and thinking of the comprehensive history and legacy of Washington's history and how to preserve important aspects of it would be a lot of work. Why do anything to make the state officials you see at all the events uncomfortable with you? I'm guessing Wilkeson doesn't send a lot of delegation to state preservation workshops so they're a much safer target.

Another factor that may or may not matter: You've got to admit it's interesting that if you look at a list of board members, none of the endangered buildings are in their cities. Certainly it's pretty safe to not list buildings in your area: you won't run into any state officials there or unhappy property owners.

I should stress this is all speculation on my part. There's no proof that the odd dispersion of geography and choice are intentional. There's no proof that the state government's financial contribution has any effect on the Trust.

It might also just be that the board didn't think much about it at all.

I'm not sure if that reason is better or worse.

By omitting these buildings, a valuable opportunity to help build attention for them was lost. The only note that I got back from the Washington Trust promised they will "watch" the Western State Hospital buildings. Well, we all can join in that. Let's watch the buildings fall down. You don't need to be on the state payroll to do that.

Here's more info about the grounds of Western State Hospital, if you are interested: