Overview
Title
To establish the Fort Ontario National Monument in the State of New York as a unit of the National Park System, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H. R. 1031 is a plan to make Fort Ontario in New York part of the National Park System so people can remember that hundreds of people stayed there during World War II to be safe. It will be like a special park to tell their story and help people learn about it.
Summary AI
H. R. 1031 proposes to establish the Fort Ontario National Monument in New York as a unit of the National Park System, called the Fort Ontario Holocaust Refugee Shelter National Historical Park. The purpose of the park is to preserve and interpret the history of 982 World War II refugees who found shelter there from 1944 to 1946. The bill outlines that the park's creation depends on the acquisition of sufficient land and provides guidelines for its administration, including agreements for education and land management. The Secretary of the Interior is tasked with developing a management plan for the park, involving consultation with New York State.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
Overview of the Legislation
The proposed legislation, titled the "Fort Ontario Holocaust Refugee Shelter National Historical Park Establishment Act," seeks to establish the Fort Ontario Holocaust Refugee Shelter National Historical Park in New York. This initiative aims to recognize and preserve the historical significance of Fort Ontario, which served as a shelter for 982 World War II refugees from 1944 to 1946. The bill outlines the roles, responsibilities, and procedures necessary for the park's creation, management, and administration, designating the Secretary of the Interior as the primary authority in charge.
Significant Issues
The bill presents several noteworthy issues:
Subjective Criteria for Land Acquisition: The bill leaves the determination of a "sufficient quantity of land" to the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior. Without clear criteria, this could lead to arbitrary decision-making and potential disagreements.
Lack of Financial Transparency: The bill does not specify estimated costs for establishing and maintaining the park, which could result in financial uncertainty and concern among taxpayers about the efficient use of public funds.
Vague Definitions and Provisions: Some definitions, such as that of the "map," are tied to specific documents. Updates or changes to these documents could create confusion. Similarly, provisions allowing the Secretary to make agreements with vague "public and private entities" could raise ethical questions about favoritism or conflict of interest.
Restricted Land Acquisition: The current stipulation that land owned by New York State or its subdivisions can only be acquired by donation may limit the park's potential scope and delay its development.
Potential Favoritism: By focusing explicitly on New York, the bill could raise concerns about whether similar sites in other states are being overlooked, potentially leading to political and public debate.
Potential Impact on the Public
The bill's establishment of a dedicated historical park could benefit the general public by preserving an important historical site and educating visitors about a lesser-known chapter of World War II history. This could foster increased tourism and educational opportunities in the area. However, the lack of defined costs and timelines may lead to public skepticism about the project's management and financial implications.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Local Community and Tourism Industry: The designation of Fort Ontario as a National Historical Park could boost local tourism, benefiting businesses and the local economy. Increased visitor traffic may lead to new job opportunities and investments in hospitality and related sectors.
Historical and Cultural Organizations: Entities dedicated to preserving history may welcome the bill as a significant step in acknowledging and preserving the narratives of wartime refugees, providing opportunities for collaboration with the National Park Service.
State Government: New York State may face challenges regarding land donations, potentially impacting the park's scope and growth. As such, state officials could be key participants in negotiations to facilitate the park's development.
Overall, while the bill has the potential to enrich American historical understanding and local economies, careful consideration of its unresolved issues will be essential to ensure effective and transparent implementation.
Issues
The bill does not specify the criteria for what constitutes a 'sufficient quantity of land or interests in land' for establishing the park, leaving this determination to the Secretary, which could allow for subjective decision-making and potential controversy. (Section 3 (a)(3)(A))
There is no mention of the estimated cost for establishing or maintaining the National Historical Park, making it difficult to evaluate potential financial impacts or waste which could be concerning to taxpayers. (Section 3)
The definition of 'map' refers to a specific document with a number and date, which could lead to confusion if the document is updated or altered in the future without a corresponding update to the definition, impacting the interpretation and implementation of the law. (Section 2)
The ability for the Secretary to enter into cooperative agreements with undefined 'public and private entities' could potentially lead to favoritism or conflicts of interest without clear criteria or oversight, raising ethical concerns. (Section 3 (b)(2)(A))
The limitation that land owned by the State or political subdivisions can only be acquired by donation restricts expansion possibilities and could slow the development of the park, which may hinder the park's establishment and operations. (Section 3 (b)(3)(B))
The extraction of 'State' referring specifically to New York may imply favoritism or a narrow focus, raising concerns about whether considerations for similar sites in other states are being omitted, potentially sparking political debate. (Section 2)
The text does not specify a timeline for when the Secretary must determine if sufficient land has been acquired, which could lead to indefinite delays in the establishment of the park, reducing the project's accountability and urgency. (Section 3)
The provision allowing the Secretary to enter into interpretation and restoration agreements for resources 'in close proximity to' the park is vague and could extend the influence of the park beyond its boundaries without clear limits, potentially complicating jurisdictional governance. (Section 3 (b)(2)(B))
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section provides the short title of the bill, stating that it may be referred to as the "Fort Ontario Holocaust Refugee Shelter National Historical Park Establishment Act."
2. Definitions Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The text outlines definitions for terms used in the act, including the term "map," which refers to a specific map related to the Fort Ontario Holocaust Refugee Shelter National Historical Park, and the term "National Historical Park," which denotes the park itself. It also clarifies that "Secretary" refers to the Secretary of the Interior and "State" refers to the State of New York.
3. Establishment of Fort Ontario Holocaust Refugee Shelter National Historical Park Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill establishes the Fort Ontario Holocaust Refugee Shelter National Historical Park in the state, with the aim to preserve and interpret the historical stories of 982 World War II refugees. The Secretary is responsible for managing the park, entering cooperative agreements, acquiring land, and developing a management plan in collaboration with the state, all subject to specific guidelines and limitations.