Saving Butte's Iconic Headframes and Mining History

This is a blogpost I wrote 2 years ago for our uptownbutteworks blog

The cutting torches were fired up. 2/3 of the chippy hoist at the Mountain Con was destroyed. The primary drive axle at the double-drum hoist was severed and all copper motor components taken. The ore bin at the Kelley Mine was partially dismantled. In the wake of the mine closure in the early 80's, Butte was being raped and robbed of its visible mining history.
John T. Shea, a retired ACM Ropeman (ironworker) that worked at mines all over the Butte hill, watched out his kitchen window as the Mountain Con was being ransacked. The headframes were next. The rallying cry was then sounded by John:
"You might cut down one headframe," he declared, "but you'll be hanging from the next."
As the local Historic Preservation Officer whose job it was to preserve resources, this destruction made me physically ill. I marched into the Mountain Con yard and, blood boiling, demanded proof of permission for this "salvage." They had none. A pile of molten, smoking metal lay beneath the severed 18" axle.
Without the passion of the residents of Butte and their willingness to fight for the history of their town, we would have nary a headframe gracing the hill. Perhaps only the Orphan Girl at the WMM. We would have no Original Mineyard for festivals and weddings, no intact Anselmo Mineyard. No Mountain Con towering over a beautiful park.
The main problem was that the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) was being ignored by those in control (BSB). Because not only was Butte historic, it was a National Historic Landmark that required even more Federal compliance than usual. This continues to be an issue to this very day.
Perseverance equals preservation. For 20 years I did my job as a BSB employee, which was insisting on governmental following of Federal regulation while up against politicos and their self-serving desires.
In the end that perseverance cost me my job, but it made preservation of our resources happen. Was it worth it? Yes. Every second. Because when I look up at the Butte Hill, I feel a sense of pride and accomplishment for a job well done. 5/2014

The resources that we have in Butte, that are now so beloved, almost did not survive. People have to understand that this is what VISION is. The process of saving resources and slowly turning them into parks and trails and venues takes years of planning and finding money. Those were, and remain my strengths. I am proud because Butte would not be the place it is without my hard work and perseverance in the face of a lot of negative adversity. 

Pissing in the Public Pool

Don't piss in the pool and tell me it is not yellow!

 And don't tell me that all public money, whatever the source, is NOT public money when it is directed into the pool!

 As with all of my Wednesdays, I enjoy attending the Council of Commissioners meetings to observe all the falderal that takes place with your/my/our tax money.

A half an hour prior to the Council meeting, I attended the Judiciary Committee. A brave citizen stood up at the Judiciary committee and spoke up regarding the $500,000 dollars pledged by Matt Vincent at a staged event in the BSB rotunda yesterday. He was instantly accused of “not understanding” the fund and its uses. But in fact, he understood more than the commissioners at the table.

 The $500,000 commitment was yet to be approved for expenditure by the Council of Commissioners. (Just “dropped in their laps” per their usual complaint). This non-approved pledge was being offered to reduce the cost to tax payers for the pool bond issue.

Vincent, the County Attorney and BSB Budget Director spent considerable time explaining to the Judiciary Committee that this public money was not really public money, it was 1980 money, from an ARCO tax settlement, so that this public money does not really count as public money! (where is the logic here?)  The pool seems to be getting warmer……

This money in the past has been used for critical public needs for such things as collateral to back bond issues, renovating the Courthouse elevator and a new boiler for the Civic Center. These were all critical needs that required public money.

 Let us travel back to this ARCO tax settlement that is in the public trust as public money. The use of a reserve fund to back a bond issue as collateral makes sense, but expending the money under the cover of water as a reduction to the tax payer should be difficult water to swallow, considering what it contains. BSB will always have bonds to back, grants to match and emergencies to address and all of these will take tax payer money to accomplish.

If the voters decide to vote for the pool bond for the construction of a summer use pool and wet-playground and its never-ending maintenance, the vote should stand entirely upon its own merits without any additional public money. If Community members and corporation wish to help with their generosity, I commend them.

 As for me I stand by my already stated opinion regarding the pool and highly recommend voting NO! on the pool bond issue. With the hopeful rejection of the bond for the pool I would recommend channeling all public generosity to the YMCA aquatics facility and its programs and develop a long-term public private partnership with the Y. There is plenty of room for a sun (skin-cancer) deck, splash pad and even a lazy river at a substantially reduced construction and maintenance cost for a facility that with a few additions fully meets the proposed Stodden pool.  The Y operates year-round, and can accommodate swimmers during inclement summer weather. It has excellent staff, established swim programs and in all honesty does not need any duplication.  The Y is a nonprofit that collects significant donations and does so many great things for the community besides the pool and programs within its walls. The Y is a proven entity that contributes greatly, with real dollars to our economy through its programs and staffing.  

This pool issue is being soiled by twisted truths and misinformation, coming from the person we are supposed to trust the most with our public money, grandstanding on a fund he has no right to use in this way. Do not be misled.   

The Economics of Festivals

Caesar! It is not all about the spectacle!

Various Roman emperors would put on exuberant spectacles in the Coliseum to entertain the populous when there was dissatisfaction within the Roman Senate. Our festivals have taken on this appearance as the years have rolled on. Everyone seems to love the festivals as an apparent free party; but as your parents would tell you "there is no free lunch." Someone is paying, but no one seems to have any idea how much.

There is no doubt that the summer festivals have had a positive benefit in promoting Butte and changing the minds of many Montanan's impression of Butte from a negative to a positive.

 The issue at hand is that these Festivals have a never-ending appetite for additional funding. Specific allocated public funds are never enough and these established organizations and groups ask for funding each year after year.

When the URA first established funding for events and festivals, their program requirements were set up with limits on the amount of funding with a requirement of a 20% reduction each year until the event was self-sustaining. This has not remotely happened. In fact the appetite for money has grown each year, dipping into such funds as economic development money that, in my opinion and by established guidelines, would be better utilized for new economic opportunities, not old established ones.

The “in-kind” donation of people hours and equipment by BSB is not free. Hours worked are logged in, salaries are paid, equipment used is charged against the BSB budget and fuel is utilized.  This in-kind donation by BSB is an actual cost.

In addition, our summer construction season is short, and equipment used for such critical needs as road construction are diverted to support the summer festivals. No one can dispute that our roads are NOT in premier shape.

 BSB equipment and man power should be utilized on basic public works projects. Required festival setup and construction should funded by the various event organizations that should be utilizing local contractors, labor and volunteers.

It was also quite amusing that one week before a certain festival last summer, the Head of Public Works declared “all potholes filled.” So, in essence, we would make the connection that all equipment being utilized, all day long, for a week before and after the festival, was not really needed for public works. Ok……….

There is always a lot of talk about the economic impact of the festivals, estimates of visitation and the amount of money brought into the economy. It is difficult to believe that some of the reports are valid considering that virtually all of the vendors are from out of town, whether they be food vendors or out of town crafts persons. The vendors pay fees that support the festival and the profit goes to the out of towner. Local motels see a spike in overnight stays but not dramatically. Visitors often come for one day and are from a 200 mile radius.

 I can tell you from experience in owning a gift shop business in the heart of Uptown on the corner of Montana and Park Street that our worst summer days were during festivals. We might as well have closed our doors and simply enjoyed the event.

Public comments were “Well, you must have raked it in during the festival with all those people in town!” Um… no. It is an urban legend for retailers that the festivals line their pockets. Ask any retail business in Uptown Butte during the festivals if business is great during the festivals, virtually all will say no.

 Some restaurants and bars have indicated good paydays, but not extraordinary. Festival goers are buying over-priced funnel cakes and other food and buying crafts from various artisans; the last thing a sun burned festival goer is going to do is shop local. Uptown merchants work and pay taxes for 365 days of the years vs. the limited days of the festivals.

Our sporting events and various tournaments have significant impacts to the local economy that are tracked quite accurately. Families purchase meals, stay in hotels and visit attractions.

This same type of accurate tracking should be applied to the various festivals. Some Festivals have paid staff, others are all volunteer and others are set up to make money. Some festivals receive significant amounts of public support and money and other very little. Some festivals are virtually self sufficient while others are always requesting more money.

The point here is that all festivals should become self-sustaining and that all of these events should be treated with a formula of equality based upon the positive and proven economic benefit to the community.

I am not advocating ending public funding or support of festivals, but I am advocating for the careful evaluation of their true impacts and costs to the tax payer. I have specifically not called out any particular event or festival on purpose, because the formula to evaluate their benefit has yet to be developed.  The evaluation of each festival can be undertaken in a fair and impartial manner. It will certainly not be a major crisis if a festival has to be slightly downsized, location adjusted or its schedule and programs revised. Fair is fair and local taxes should certainly benefit local citizens and business because basically the free festivals are actually being paid for with your money.

There is no better history of a "Free Festival" becoming a financial suckhole than "Burning Man."  You might want to check it out.

Gagging on Government Ga Ga

A Taste of Vomit!

I just threw-up in my mouth a little bit with the announcement of putting a sign proclaiming "Welcome to Butte - (& Anaconda) National Historic Landmark" (District) on the site of 2 previously viable historic buildings that were demolished by BSB at taxpayer expense. The irony made my stomach churn and urp-up at the misdirection of our current local Administration.

It has once again been acknowledged in the Montana Standard that: "The commissioners voted to pursue two other options before settling on that plan, which Chief Executive Matt Vincent's team had suggested from the get-go". That plan being: "The corner is among the busiest in Butte, and Community Development Director Karen Byrnes has said a green gateway would be pleasing image to both residents and tourists visiting Uptown."

This "get-go" plan confirms that prior to the demolition of the Brincks & Deluxe (Bennett Blocks 1 &2) plans for placing a green gateway were understood by the Vincent Administration. This pre-planning is known as "Anticipatory Demolition,” a clear violation of Federal Law under the National Historic Preservation Act within a National Historic Landmark District.

BSB applied for and received Federal Highway funds know as CTEP (Community Transportation Enhancement Program) for the "Green Gateway" at the Front & Utah project. All Federal funded projects must comply with all Federal laws from clean water & air "Acts" to Historic Preservation requirements. The pre-planned gateway and "Demolition" should have mandated a required process under the National Historic Preservation Act known as "Section 106" of that Act; this 106 process was not conducted. The current expenditure of federal "Highway Enhancement" funds is in violation of the National Historic Preservation Act. BSB is obligated to be in compliance with Federal Historic Preservation Laws as a "Certified Local Government" that receives Federal money for it local preservation program.

I simply Can't say anything more because of the bad taste in my mouth, don't you just hate that when it happens? Gagging on Government Ga Ga

A Dog Gone Failure

There was a lot of fanfare about Butte's first dog park. Too bad the provisions provided for dogs are a total failure. At least, that was the consensus of the 20 plus people that attended the first of many community council dog meetings held at racetrack fire hall.

If you have not used the new dog park at Skyline Park (behind NCAT) you should make an attempt. The dog pens are 1/4 mile away from the parking lot, for a 1/2 mile round trip. This may be fine for a person that wants exercise but for people with limited mobility and older citizens, this is a problem. 

The route is not paved all the way so it is not ADA accessible. Once you get to the pens you find a barren waste land of gravel, weeds and broken glass - not the kind of interactive place for dog owners to meet and socialize their dogs. Dog owners tried to participate in the design but were ignored during the process.

The first, most obvious flaw with the design is that dogs pee and poop when they get out of a car. Why would you put a children's playground immediately next to the parking lot shared by both the dog owners and others utilizing the park? There should be a separate parking area for people with dogs that would eliminate any conflict between users.

There is a whole list of improvements that could actually make this a usable park for dogs, their owners and other uses - but that is a long list!

It has been announced by BSB that this was Butte's first dog park and they are learning a lot and are thinking about changes. Too little, too late!! There are plenty of examples around the state and in other communities that could have been looked at.

But most importantly, and most left out of the process, were Butte’s own dog owners. If this group would have been brought together and listened to, the solution to a quality design would have been obvious.

A dog park should be just that: a park. A place for people and pets to be 

Not a Student in Sight

Where were the Tech Students and their bicycles?

Wednesday night's council meeting was inspiring with many new faces attending to show their support of improving Park Street; but with most questioning the need for a central landscaped median and the reduction from 4 lanes to 2 lanes.

What was noticeable, was that there were ZERO Tech students in attendance as well as any representatives of Montana Tech. I am assuming that their input has been addressed in private meetings and that they did not have to attend public meetings.

My strong opinion is "Let's keep W. Park Street 4 lanes and put the pedestrians and bicycles on the adjacent and safe streets of Galena and Broadway!"

The presentation by BSB Staff and further statements by Planning Director Jon Sesso noted that the preliminary traffic count for Park Street did not justify 4 lanes of traffic capacity. By only utilizing traffic count as a planning formula, the true nature of the roadway is not fully considered.

The full capacity of 4 lanes is required by the nature of morning "going to work travel" and student travel when classes let out and students are going to class. Sporting and other events at Tech fill Park Street when they let out. By only utilizing a total count, without consideration of the hours of the day and events, the formula is dangerously flawed.

It snuck out during the presentation that the program of 2 lanes, landscaped median, bike lanes and landscaped "parkletts" is what has already been presented to the Montana Department of Transportation as the requirements for the street design!  

Time is close to running out to change the direction of this project and provide substantive input. Please submit your communitarian letter that supports your opinion to the council- whatever that may be. Your public participation and involvement is commendable.  

W. Park Street Magical Mystery People Mover

Slow it down on W. Park Street?

It's apparently summer 12 months of the year here in Butte, MT!

I did not know that Park Street was located south of the Mason-Dixon Line in a slow paced southern clime where it does not snow and you relax on a "Parklet" bench to the sounds of the steady clip-clop of a horse pulling a surrey with fringe on top.

Come on everyone! The 4 lanes of Park Street are a vital and efficient corridor that moves our community safely to and from the West Side and Montana Tech. Going to 2 lanes with bike lanes is simply asking for a student late for class to zip around a slower car using the bike lane. The assumption that bike lanes should be placed on a primary automobile route is another misguided makeover.  

Let us not forget that it snows in Butte MT. Yes it snows and this is a primary route for motorists. It is being proposed that a landscaped median be introduced. This misguided make-over interferes with snow removal. During the winter snows this central area is allocated to windrows of snow for pick-up, which effectively turns Park Street into 2 lanes anyway. Piling snow on the median with planted shrubs will certainly kill the landscaping. During our short months of summer the landscaping will be baked dry by the asphalt and require significant water.

Left turning lanes with "Bike Boxes" are proposed. We already have left turn lanes: they are called the left lane of a 4 lane road. Arrows and signage work for this in conjunction with other improvements providing the turning lanes. Again, placing bikes on a major road artery is misguided and dangerous. The proper location for bikes is to share the road on the 2 adjacent residential streets of Broadway and Galena.  These are residential streets where the inhabitants want traffic to travel slowly. Grades are appropriate and speed limits and signage and road markers work to share the road.

There is all this talk of slowing down and enjoying the drive. I don't know about you but my life is limited on time and having a clear efficient route is important in my day to day rounds. If people are speeding, is this not an enforcement issue? At tech there is a radar sign that indicates your speed, lots of ways to control speed instead of blocking an effective 4 lane primary route.

A computer generated town was presented in the paper. It is obviously somewhere in the Southern United States and is given as an idealized example. The town has no hills and obviously no snow. This computer-aided BS (yes, bullshit) shows an imagined business district - what is significantly wrong with this depiction is that West Park Street is in actuality a street lined with residences. Only a small scattering of businesses exist and imposing additional business only reduces the impressive quality of historic homes.

There is a convenience store (our neighborhood grocery store), a pasty shop, Laundromat, a restaurant, pizza parlor/bar, and a doctor's office. These current businesses serve the corridor well and introducing additional competition will not assist in their survival.  

The closest real business area is east of Idaho Street on Park Street. That is where improvement efforts for business should be made and should have been being made for decades. The core of the Uptown is effectively only 8 blocks away. Let's not make a residential area with historic homes into something that it is not!

There is a place for the concept of traffic slowing with a reduction of two lanes and bump-out landscaping. In fact, I worked extensively with Bob Poor's efforts to place the Tech Arch and make the trail crossing safer for pedestrians. The bottom of the hill up to tech is the logical place to slow things down, but not before that.

So where is the ideal place for all the proposed improvements? Those visionary improvements should be concentrated at Montana Tech; from Marcus Daily statue to the west through campus. Reduce the width of asphalt, widen sidewalks, provide seating, install bike lanes and bike racks, and insert little landscaped "parklets". On street loading/unloading zones for delivery of goods as well as pick-up and drop-off of students. These type of improvements work well within the reduced speed limits of Montana Tech. The central landscaped median would work well here in slowing down traffic and as a central protected area for pedestrians. With minimum modifications a turn-a-round Marcus' statue can serve as a drop-off that would limit a drive through of campus when classes change.

So what about the remainder of Park Street? There is MDOT funding available! Where I believe the effort should be made is to enhance pedestrian safety in conjunction with repaving the street. The concept of handicap accessible bump-outs is valid at all intersections along Park Street. Instead of a lot of landscaping in the bump-outs some hard-scape such as historic cobble stones, iron work and some (pedestrian protective) flower-planters would enhance the corridor. Historically appropriate lighting at the intersections with cross walk use signals would also be appropriate. Existing street lighting can be enhanced, with historic inspired light heads with light cut-off to limit glare into homes. Historically detailed decorative banner mounts can be added to light poles for the mounting of semi-permanent tech banners that can also be lighted to indicate the desired Tech corridor.

So I have called out recommendation in words, but these out of town consultants know what they are doing - right? Remember the $280/hour concept of reverse angle parking? The professional who didn’t even know it snowed here?

 Who do you think you are some sort of professional designer? Well I have 35 years of experience in understanding of the Historic District and yes I am a profession designer, a licensed Architect in the State of Montana.

 So I will be doing what Architects do - which is putting my concepts and recommendation on paper and sharing them with others and participating in the upcoming public meetings.