August 27, 2026:
Several years ago, the National Trust for Historic Preservation (National Trust) launched a quiz called “What Kind of Preservationist Are You?” It was a clever way to illustrate that preservationists are drawn to this work for many different reasons. It also spoke to the fact that you may be a preservationist even if you don’t think of yourself as one.
Not surprisingly, I am a people preservationist. I live for my community. I believe in an approach to preservation that is relevant, social, and connected to the people we serve. I believe preservation is ultimately about people and their stories, and about advocating for the places that make Annapolis unique.
I’ve been thinking about this exercise a lot lately as the federal protections that support this kind of people-centered preservation are under threat. Major changes are being proposed to the federal “Section 106” regulations that would gut the effectiveness of current legal protections for historic and cultural places. It would be a devastating departure from the collaborative spirit of consultation that has made Section 106 so effective for 60 years. See below for more context about Section 106.
In the 1960s, the National Historic Preservation Act (Act) was passed in response to the widespread destruction of historic neighborhoods through urban renewal and other development. The Act created a national framework for preservation and ensured that historic properties would be considered in federal decision-making. Section 106 of that seminal legislation requires federal agencies to consider how their actions may affect historic properties and provides the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and others the opportunity to participate in the process. The ACHP is the federal agency responsible for overseeing Section 106, and many of the Council members are appointed by the President of the United States.
If the proposed changes go through, federal agencies would no longer be required to try to avoid or minimize damage to our country’s historic architecture, neighborhoods, and landscapes. State and local governments would no longer have the right to be notified or to comment when federal agencies propose to damage or destroy historic places within their jurisdiction. The public would no longer be granted the guaranteed opportunity to comment on federal preservation policies or actions. As stated by Brent Leggs, President and CEO of the National Trust, the proposed changes would “eviscerate the preservation of our shared civic and cultural heritage in the United States.”
I had the great fortune to work at the ACHP right out of graduate school. For decades, its dedicated staff have administered Section 106, a process grounded in public engagement. It’s designed to bring communities and federal agencies together to protect historic places while allowing important projects to move forward. Countless federal projects are better because of Section 106.
My first real experience with the power of Section 106 came nearly 30 years ago. As an ACHP staffer, I was sent to Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin, to advocate for saving a historic bridge. This bridge was so closely tied to the community’s identity that it’s the town logo. Public engagement was so widespread that the meetings were televised. The consultation was a true success, resulting in a second bridge span to address the community’s transportation needs while preserving a beloved cultural icon. Strong local engagement helped shape that successful outcome.
For a more local example, last year the Section 106 process was triggered as the City Dock project moved into advanced planning, because of the federal funding associated with the resiliency work. Historic Annapolis and other preservationists advocated for vibration monitoring of adjacent historic properties and mitigation guidelines in the event of damage. Section 106 did not stop the project. It made the project better.
Today’s proposed changes to Section 106 would weaken public participation and diminish the ability of communities to help shape what happens to the historic places that they care about.
Across the nation, preservationists are banding together to oppose these proposed sweeping changes to Section 106. You can help by writing to your elected officials and sharing your thoughts on the role preservation and local consultation should play in federal projects. You don’t have to be an expert to engage in the process. Click here for a sample letter and how to reach your elected officials. You can also learn more here:
Advocacy is one of our core values; it is at the heart of the work we do here at Historic Annapolis. If you share our love for Maryland’s capital city, and if you believe in advocating for the places that make Annapolis unique, then you, too, are a preservationist.
Warm regards,
Karen
