The recent discussions about the proposed Kansas Nebraska Heritage Area Partnership (KNHAP) sparked input from individuals, organizations, and politicians who weigh in showing support or opposition to the proposal. Supporters of the KNHAP note the potential for increased tourism and revenue to rural areas, while opposition see a lack of transparency and threats to property, with some even proposing the KNHAP is linked to the Biden Administration’s 30x30 plan to address climate change. With all of these stories circulating, I could not help but weigh in by talking to two prominent leaders on this topic: Kim Wilson, Executive Director of the KNHAP, and Norman Kincaide, organizer for the Western Regional Property Rights Coalition. Here, I provide a brief synopsis of those interviews and provide further questions to think beyond the narrative at hand and examine underlying issues.

The roots of the Kansas Nebraska Area Heritage Partnership (KNAHP) trace back to a University of Nebraska-Lincoln undergraduate landscape architecture classroom taught by Professor Kim Wilson in 2016. According to a KNHAP Press Release, these students’ project centered on how to “increase economic development through a more regional approach to cultural heritage tourism.” A group of nine students sought out information on local attractions and services to attract tourists within a two-hour driving radius of the Willa Cather Museum, which was one of several community collaborators.

During a series of three community meetings about potential opportunities to increase local tourism, a member of the community suggested a National Heritage Area (NHA) designation through the National Park Service. The suggestion of an NHA was met by overwhelming support from the audience. Supporters of the KNAHP as a National Heritage Area seek designation through the NPS for increased funding opportunities and publicity. Moreover, Kim Wilson sees that the KNHAP designation as a NHA will help empower community groups whose work centers on cultural heritage and historic preservation by bringing in interested tourists and additional resources.

As Kim Wilson told me, the designation through NPS provides more opportunities for residents to bolster their community and in no way infringes on private property rights. At this point, the KNHAP is still in the beginning phases of exploration into this project’s scope through a feasibility study. This is a multilayered and lengthy process to seek approval and designation by the NPS and the project is run by volunteers whose interest rests in a grassroots approach to work collaboratively with local communities. In the meantime, the group has met opposition.

Those opposing the KNHAP see the proposal as a threat to property rights. Norman Kincaide of the Western Regional Property Rights Coalition has traveled extensively throughout the region, giving talks opposing NHAs. I spoke with Norman Kincaide briefly about his interest in involvement and issues he sees associated with the projects. He said he became involved in 2018 when a resident from Nebraska alerted him about this proposed NHA in the region.

According to Norman Kincaide, the major points of opposition center around the lack of transparency in establishing NHAs and the infringement of property rights through zoning restrictions. Norman has written extensively on this topic of opposing NHAs and coordinated efforts in Southeastern Colorado to oppose a NHA in that region.

When I asked Norman Kincaide if he sees this as a land grab, he disagreed, instead saying that he sees it as a grab for managerial and administrative power and a means to acquire property rights through zoning. To further elaborate, he referenced Chapter 5 of the Journey Through Hallowed Ground National Heritage Area’s Management Plan, which is available online. As he put it, he sees this language in Chapter 5 as a means for a local jurisdiction to conform to federal guidelines. On that same note, Norman Kincaide shared an example of a proposed cell phone tower near a historic site in Colorado that had a zoning law that restricted any built features in view of the historic site. As a result of the zoning law, the cell phone tower was not approved.

This example is not too surprising given this is the intention of zoning, and might be similarly understood through other examples of restrictions, such as the example of the Alamo, where zoning restrictions prevent tall buildings from casting a shadow onto the Alamo memorial. Or even understood through zoning laws that restrict sewage treatment plants from being built in residential or downtown locations. I see that this contention might have more to do with the fraught origins of land use law than heritage areas, but I will save that discussion for another day.

Based on these interviews, there is an argument for the KNHAP to support local tourism and increase revenue to rural areas. On the other, an argument against KNHAP because of concern for property rights and a lack of transparency. Dare I say, both sides seem to have concern for rural livelihoods in mind. That said, there’s more to consider here as this debate speaks to larger issues at hand that need further questioning. For example, how this land was acquired, who it was stolen from, and who continues to ben efit from property rights? Additionally, what economic conditions bring upon the need for an ever-increasing revenue to rural areas? And finally, whose heritage is celebrated in local museums and National Park sites and who benefits?

Sophia Ford is a former resident of Wilson who now is a PhD student at the University of Oregon in environmental studies and geography.