Editorial in the Tribune today — a small issue in the grand scheme of things, but disturbing, nonetheless: there are plans in motion to name the Pullman neighborhood a National Park. Not a Historic Landmark, or even a National Historic Site, but a National Park. And the Tribune calls on Obama, in service to his hometown, to skip the subsequent economic feasibility study and act of Congress and declare it so.
To be sure, the neighborhood, formerly the company town of the Pullman passenger rail cars, then the site of the strike that led to the first black union, the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters, is from all reports, a neighborhood of charming architecture, though fallen on hard times. And the Tribune hopes that National Park designation will be a spur for tourism and general neighborhood revitalization. (Indeed, they are very focused on Obama taking an action as president to shower favor on the neighborhood, suggesting that it might, alternatively, be the site of his Presidential Library.)
But — wow. Digging a little further, I learned that the “resource study” was conducted at the behest of the now-disgraced Jesse Jackson, Jr.
Here’s what the National Park Conservation Association has to say about this proposal: “And since the site is just 15 miles south of downtown Chicago, Pullman could become one of the very few “commutable” national parks. Countless families and schoolchildren could have their first national park experience for the price of a train ticket.”
(Irritatingly, I can’t find the actual study anywhere online.)
But a National Park isn’t a place to be visited solely because of the designation “National Park” and it’s not a means of delivering federal largesse to a community. Or, at least, not the last I checked.
And a “national park experience” should mean something more than just being at a location designated “national park.”
I’m having trouble even following the logistics here. Will the homes remain privately-owned, just with (it’s hoped) tourists filling the streets? Are the vacant buildings to be built out into visitors’ centers and museums (with the further costs of building a generously-sized museum)? And how much of a museum can you make solely out of the topic of unionization? Or is the purpose of the designation just to have the label “National Park” with a small office for passport-stamping, and to further the goal of “equitable” distribution of national parks in a bean-counting sort of way?
Has the National Park Service become, like any other government agency, more interested in its own growth and budget, and boosting “park attendance” numbers by increasing park count, than meeting its mission?
This is mission creep. This is brand dilution, if “national park” doesn’t even merit being a AAA Starred Attraction. For the National Park Service to become just another means of delivering pork is shameful. And for the Chicago Tribune to make a pitch for national park designation solely for economic benefits is equally wrong.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In