“What the Pullman National Monument Needs” Is People Who Care
In “What The Pullman National Monument Needs Now Is Fewer ‘Partners,’” Mark Konkol throws cold water on celebrations surrounding the grand opening of a new visitors center at the Pullman National Monument on Chicago’s far South Side.
Konkol’s half-informed screed takes cheap shots at organizations that have spent decades interpreting Pullman’s rich and layered history and safeguarding (for the most part) its historic resources.
For example, he blasts the “Pullman State Historic Site” for doing the “bare minimum” with the Hotel Florence. He calls the Historic Pullman Foundation “the do-nothing landlord of Market Hall.” He attacks the character of Dr. Lyn Hughes, founder of the National A. Philip Randolph Pullman Porter Museum, claiming she formed a preservation group that, in 2002, “defaulted on a loan” and “declared bankruptcy.”
Admittedly, we can all find something to gripe about in Pullman — that part is easy. But Konkol’s portrait is unfair and inaccurate.
I can explain it this way:
Would there be a Pullman National Monument without Mark Konkol? Yes.
Would there be a Pullman National Monument without the State of Illinois, the Historic Pullman Foundation, and the National A. Philip Randolph Pullman Porter Museum? Hell no.
What’s most troubling is that Konkol’s big move in his piece is to promote legislation advanced by Senator Dick Durbin (S.2896) and Congresswoman Robin Kelley (H.R. 2626). The proposed legislation would convert the “Pullman National Monument” into “Pullman National Historical Park.”
Konkol argues that passage of this legislation would be a panacea for what he thinks ails Pullman. He claims, wrongly, that it would “pave the way for the National Park System to acquire and revitalize under utilized historic properties.”
He’s clearly not read the bills, nor is he familiar with the content of Proclamation 9233, the Monument’s establishing legislation.
President Obama established the Pullman National Monument under the authority of the Antiquities Act of 1906. In doing so, he reserved lands within a “National Monument Boundary,” thereby establishing a federal reservation. The purpose of this reservation is to preserve the historic objects situated upon these lands.
While it is true that the National Park Service has the most authority over lands it owns (.2397 acres), existing laws and regulations permit the National Park Service to acquire property within the National Monument Boundary and to exercise a range of “land protection methods” up to and including condemnation, as a last resort, “when necessary to protect park resources and values” (see p. 30).
There is absolutely nothing in the draft text of the legislation proposed by Senator Durbin and Congresswoman Kelly that strengthens the protections of Pullman’s historic resources or expands management authority of the National Park Service. Moreover, there’s no telling what the final version of the bill will include when it comes out of a conference committee sometime in the near future.
The National Park Service has claimed the bill “provides for some specific management and cooperative agreement authorities that would be new to the unit” but these “new” provisions have not been explained to the public. The Superintendent of the Pullman National Monument told our organization in May 2021 that she cannot comment on pending legislation. Therefore, this conversion from a monument to a historical park involves significant risk — risk we don’t need to take.
Lastly, from a practical standpoint, we have to ask if it makes sense to rebrand the site as “Pullman National Historical Park” now. Name changes are costly. Moreover, the site has been marketed as the “Pullman National Monument” for six years and has 101,000 Google search results to prove it. The conversion would also obscure President Obama’s role in establishing the monument, the symbolic importance of which should not be overlooked.
It’s ultimately up to the broader public and those in the community to protect Pullman. The real threat to Pullman is not from doing too little; it’s from doing the wrong things. I’m quite willing to wait another decade for the Market Hall to be restored if its means it will be done well and serve the public interest in the Monument.
In the end, Pullman doesn’t need fewer partners, it needs more people who care about this special place.
