In a nutshell, the museum sits on a seven-acre tract of NPS land. Though there was a usage agreement in place, the NPS exercised its right to terminate the agreement and imposed new conditions on the museum that the museum found unworkable. [Emphasis mine.]
The National Park Service bears no financial responsibility for the opertion or support of the museum complex, yet they decided they would just take the museum’s assets. The aircraft and other exhibits and collections are owned by the museum Trust, or by private owners who loaned them to the museum. Rather than risk having these assets confiscated, the Museum Trust decided to move them.
The National Park Service was ‘caught off guard’ by this action, and is ‘assessing next steps’. So… They’re like, ‘What? They’re not going to just give us 15 airplanes and all of their other stuff? How rude!’?
The the NPS would post these back and forth letters is kind of strange.
It does seem in the correspondence (especially this one) that the NPS expected to be given the keys with all the on site displays intact. That the planes and things people actually came to see would be removed by the donors did seem to exist as a possibility to them.
I’ve read the links, albeit a bit hastily, and I have absolutely no idea what the original problem between the trust and the NPS was. What I come away with is:
[ol]
[li] The NPS built the museum and made improvements to the grounds and facilities for 18 years.[/li][li] The Trust brought most of the contents of the museum.[/li][li] There may be some misunderstanding on the part of donors/lenders as to who was receiving and responsible for the donated and lent artifacts.[/li][li] The Trust is, according to the NPS, somehow misusing the site and refusing to come to terms on an new agreement that, among other things, will stop this misuse.[/li][li] The NPS proposal in lieu of an agreement is to take over the whole operation and run it according to NPS guidelines.[/li][li] The Trust took their planes (which may or may not be entirely theirs) and went home.[/li][/ol]
The questions all seem to revolve around #4. Anyone have contributing information as to what the original beef is all about?
ETA: What I conclude is that the NPS wants to continue the museum operations, even if it means dispossessing the Trust, and the Trust would rather walk away (with the museum contents) than come to terms on whatever the original point of contention is.
It seems to me that one of the major sticking points is permitting. The NPS would require that education and interpretive programming be approved up to a year in advance. Additionally, the NPS permitting requirements ‘so saddled an all-church picnic to be held at the museum with permitting requirements as to render the event almost unmanageable—despite the picnic having taken place there previously (and despite a historical connection between some area churches and the site).’
It sounds like the NPS is stepping into an operation that has been working well, and attempting to make what works work another way. And of course, the Trust would rather run things the way they deem fit; probably feeling that they better understand the subject and the community than NPS does.
Maybe. The NPS does have a reputation, usually at the lowest levels, of being insufferably bureaucratic and controlling. (I think a selection of park rangers qualify for the biggest assholes in uniform I’ve ever encountered.)
But the Trust may be failing to properly recognize that it’s NPS’s grounds and stadium they’re playing in; if the land, buildings and infrastructure development were good enough while they called the shots, it seems that some accommodation to what NPS is asking might be reasonable. That’s what I’m asking: not where, but “what’s the beef?”
Hm, the 3 times I loaned artwork to a museum I had a contract, stating display conditions, insurance requirements and my right to terminate and remove my items and an end date of the loan. Someone would loan a Corsair [or whatever] without a contract? Now that sort of boggles my mind!
I don’t think anyone’s saying there wasn’t a contract. The NPS built and maintained the facilities; the Trust brought most of the contents. The Trust apparently doesn’t want to comply with more rigid NPS requirements for events, so is taking the collection elsewhere. What the OP seems upset about is that the NPS counter-proposed leaving the whole collection intact, under its jurisdiction.
I’m having trouble finding a comfortable spot to agree with the Trust. It sounds like they took while the tooking was good, got away with things that were contrary to park and NPS regulations, and are now choosing to leave (their taxpayer built and funded) digs rather than find area of agreement with their hosts. Maybe that’s all wrong… but I’m waiting for data here.
Not quite. In reading the letters the NPS claims they have invested approx 1.3 million over the years in maintenance and infrastructure improvements etc and donated the land. The actual museum, exhibits etc was built with about 4-5 million in funds raised by the trust-city partnership over the years.The NPS was not involved in that fundraising.
The miscalculation here seems to be that the NPS had absolutely no notion about who owned what in this scenario before they pulled the plug.
Reading between the lines the NPS wanted complete oversight on bookings and the education programs which (beyond donations) are the main cash flow generators for operations. The trust would be relegated from active managment to a caretaker/curator status. Bottom line they wanted to take over the whole operation and the trust didn’t relish being pushed to the sidelines for what was essentially their baby. Based on the tone of the letters the NPS seemed to be pretty rigid about what they wanted.
This all seems to come from the fallout, not the original provocation or problem. I concede that what NPS wanted, given some failure to find agreement with the Trust, seems excessive. I don’t want interpretations or tween-line guesses; I want to know exactly what happened, after 18 years, for the situation between the two entities to fracture.
The question that needs answering is, did the NPS suddenly ask too much of the Trust, or did the Trust get an easy ride or special accommodation that the NPS no longer cared to provide? It sounds very much like the Trust wrote their own ticket as long as NPS would put up with it, then left when they were asked to conform. But that’s very much a “between the lines” guess on my part and I’d like to see something more concrete.
It appears to me that there was an agreement between the NPS and the Trust that would last until 2025. The NPS decided it wanted to change the terms of that agreement, and the Trust felt didn’t want to.
[list][li]The NPS wanted the Trust to give them the Trust’s collections and exhibits. By what right can they do that? The collections and exhibits were never the NPS’s property.[/li][li]The Trust would be prohibited from entering into sub-agreements with outside partners. ISTM that since the Trust caters to the local community, they are in a better position to manage functions.[/li][li]As the landlord, the NPS has the right to approve what goes on on the property. However it seems to want to approve or disapprove functions based on their own criteria. The Trust (probably) believes it can better judge the needs and wants of the local community.[/li]
From that, it looks like the primary disagreement is that the Trust and the City of Vancouver believe they know best how to serve the community. The NPS decided that a youth soccer festival and a picnic for countywide churches were not something they want on their land.
Okay, it’s still a lot of back and forth opinionating, light on facts, but I gather that the issue is that the Trust used the museum facilities for “events” that included picnics, dinners, etc. - 107 of them in the last year alone.
Offhand, I can’t think of any other NPS-run facility that allows such events. I can see why NPS would be concerned; besides a vague principle-of-the-thing, there are traffic, parking, maintenance, and not inconsiderable insurance and liability issues to consider. The NPS seems to have wanted to bring the “rental hall” aspects of the situation under control.
Do I have it wrong? And is there any precedent or similar situation that might indicate the NPS is being unfair, unreasonable or otherwise inappropriate in not wanting a park grounds tenant/partner to not hold two or more booked “events” a week? What do church picnics and youth soccer dinners have to do with an airplane museum or that chunk of NPS grounds?
It really sounds like the Trust wants it both ways - they want NPS to provide and maintain the grounds while they run a for-profit (or at least for-income) event venue service from the site.
You generally don’t get to rent out government-owned facilities. Duh.
The Trust got away with it for so long they now feel entitled to continue.
Sorry the pretty planes went away, but let them buy some land and then they can see if they can both pay for the upkeep and turn a profit renting out the hall.
Hell, I’d love to have a chunk of NPS land with buildings, parking, open space to rent out. I don’t expect to get it.
Maybe the Trust should have tried to offer to cover the insurance and clean-up costs.
Or act as an event broker for the NPS to book events.
Why do the lazy French workers demanding that the rich American pay them to lose money come to mind?
