Like a nagging cold, I just can’t seem to shake the East Wing of the White House. The National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC) has opened public comments on the proposed 90,000 square foot ballroom addition to the White House. The National Trust for Historic Preservation has sent out an e-mail to me and others asking for our comments to be provided.
Given the recent meeting by the Trump-appointed U.S. Commission of Fine Arts that approved the ballroom project (even before receiving plans?), completely ignoring public comment, I am hesitant to waste any time or electrons in what appears to be an exercise in futility. That said, I do believe it is incumbent on all of us to speak up when called upon. Not speaking up can only be interpreted as assent. Please note that comments are due by March 4th, about a week away. Here is the link.
Dear NCPC,
I speak as a historic preservation professional with 40 years of experience in both Maryland and Pennsylvania. I have a PhD in Anthropology from The Penn State University with a specialization in archaeology and have worked for governmental agencies for over 30 years as well as having previously served on my State’s Historic Preservation Board. I believe the destruction of the East Wing of the White House was both capricious and illegal. There is a standing Federal Lawsuit over it, which as of this moment hasn’t been decided. In no uncertain terms, the construction of a 90,000 square foot ballroom should not be undertaken at that spot. Instead, the Federal Government should undertake to reconstruct the East Wing as it was in 2025, both in plans and materials. National Park Service Standards for Reconstruction should be followed. Presumably, the East wing has been fully documented, so that plans for its reconstruction should be available.
Reconstructing the East Wing resets the conversation over the current and future use of the East Wing in such a way that a legal path forward toward any renovations can be taken. This path should include the same public and congressional notice and involvement that previous major renovations to the White House have taken. To entertain discussions of a ballroom or any future use of the space at this time and in its current condition is to condone the illegality as a fait accompli. The full reconstruction of something so recently destroyed may seem counterintuitive; but there is no other moral option that keeps to the principals on which this Nation was founded.
Regarding the cost of the reconstruction, previous commitments by named and unnamed private donors should be declined, as an obvious conflict of interest in those donors holding or seeking government contracts. The unfortunate and needless cost of this reconstruction must be borne by the American People, as appropriated by Congress. However, to the degree that the pottery barn rule can be invoked, it should (see Colin Powell).
I, Beckerman, not Robot 