Occasionally, one runs across a blog post which is so clearly “on the money” that trying to provide alternative commentary is a waste of time.

Preservationists were shocked recently with the announcement of President Obama’s proposed budget cuts for national historic preservation programs. The National Trust for Historic Preservation’s Congressional Affairs Director called the proposals “…the most significant funding cuts since the 1980’s,” and so they are. The news reverberated in every corner of the country, as the targeted Preserve America and Save America’s Treasures programs had enjoyed success in a wide variety of locations and projects.

Preservation-related blogs provided a quick response. The blog of Preservation New Jersey, for instance, noted the impact of these programs in that state, while calling for a “strong message” to be sent to Congress in their support. Archives Next speculated on the possible impact of the rationale of these cuts being extended to the proposed Preserving the American Historical Record bill and other archival funding. Heritage Preservation shared an expression of commitment to seek re-funding of the Save America’s Treasures program, and sought success stories to use in that process. A blog with the rather unusual title of “Prerogative of Harlots,” which covers museum issues, speculated whether the damage done by the massive cuts to museum and preservation funding can ever be undone. And locally, the Columbus Dispatch provided coverage, including a quote from new Ohio Historical Society Executive Director Burt Logan.

By far, however, the most direct and on-point coverage was provided by preservation and economic development consultant Donovan Rypkema in his Place Economics blog. Never one to mince words, Rypkema looked at the actual wording of the budget proposal, and the related the rationale used to a series of other local and statewide governmental actions, and concluded that the preservation community is naïve about how well its message of place-based revitalization actually has been heard. In summation, Rypkema shares a gem of a statement, “We either need to change the mission, change the message or change the messenger.” Click here to read his post.

Rypkema’s message is timely and on point. Rallying to try and save some aspects of these two programs is not enough. What is needed is a re-thinking of our movement from the top down. Or, better yet, from the bottom up.