DOCSLIB.ORG

Table of Contents

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Table of Contents Table of Contents Part One: An Overview of Federal Historic Preservation Law. I. Introduction ...................................................................... A . Background ............................................................................3 B. Scope of Report .........................................................................4 11 .The National Historic Preservation Act ...............................................5 A . Purpose and Structure ....................................................................5 B . Legislative History .......................................................................7 C . Key Statutory Provisions: Sections 106 and 1 10 ................................................8 1. Section 106 ..........................................................................8 2 . Section 1 10 ..........................................................................9 III . Section 106 Implementing Regulations ...............................................10 A . Current Regulations ..................................................................... 11 B. Proposed Regulations ................................................................... 13 IV . Court Opinions on Compliance with Section 106 and the Council's Regulations .... 13 A . Applicability of Section 106 ..............................................................13 1 . Section 106 applies to Federal agencies ..................................................13 2 . Section 106 applies to Federal undertakings ...............................................16 3 . Timing: When an agency must comply with Section 106 .....................................22 4 . Section 106 applies to eligible and listed properties .........................................23 B . Court Decisions Interpreting the Section 106 Process ..........................................24 I . Identification and evaluation ............................................................24 2 . Assessing effects .....................................................................28 3 . The Council's opportunity to comment ...................................................29 4 . Effects of the Council's comments .......................................................32 V. Court Opinions on Compliance with Section 110 ....................................33 VI. Executive Orders .....................................................................35 A . Executive Order No . 1 1593 ..............................................................35 B . Executive Order No . 13006 ...............................................................36 C . Executive Order No . 13007 ............................................................... 37 VII . Attorneys' Fees arid Costs in Preservation Cases ....................................37 VIII. Related Authorities Involving Historic Preservation ....I ............................ 39 A . The National Environmental Policy Act ..................................................... 40 B . Transportation Authorities ................................................................45 C . Other Statutes ..........................................................................47 1. Historical and Archeological Data Preservation Act of 1974 (HADPA) and Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA) ................................... 47 2 . Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) .................... 48 3 . American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (AIRFA) ...................................48 IX . Procedural Questions in Litigating Preservation Cases ..............................49 A . Jurisdiction ............................................................................ 49 B . Standing ...............................................................................51 C . Laches ................................................................................ 54 D . Ripeness and Mootness ..................................................................56 E . Scope and Standard of Review F . Remedies ................. X . Conclusion ............... Part Two: Summaries of Court Decisions Involving Federal Historic Preservation Law Case Page No . 1. Kent County Council for Historic Preservation v . Romney ...................... 2 . South Hill Neighborhood Association v . Romley ............................ 3 . Elyv.Velde(Ely1) .................................................... 4 . Miltenberger v . Chesapeake & Ohio Railway ............................... 5. Boston Waterfront Residents Association v . Ronmey ......................... 6 . District of Columbia Federation of Civic Associations v . Volpe ................. 7 . Petterson v . Froehlke ................................................... 8. Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference v . Federal Power Comnission ........... 9 . Thompsonv.Fugate ................................................... 10. River v . Richmond Metropolitan Authority ................................. 1 1 . Saint Joseph Historical Society v . Land Clearance for Redevelopment Authority .... 12 . Ely v . Velde (Ely 11) ................................................... 13 . Environmental Defense Fund v . Tennessee Valley Authority ................... 14 . Jamesv.Lynn ........................................................ 1 5 . Pennsylvania v . Morton ................................................. 16 . Warn1 Springs Dam Task Force v . Gribble ................................. 17 . Committee on Civic Rights of the Friends of the Neivburyport Waterfront v . Romney 18 . Don't Tear It Down, Inc. v . General Services Administration ................... 19 . Save the Courthouse Committee v . Lynn .................................... 20. Columbia Basin Land Protection Association v . Kleppe ........................ 21 . Committee to Save the South Green v . Hills .................................. 22 . Ed\vards v . First Bank of Dundee .......................................... 23 . Montana Wildlife Federation il. Moston ..................................... 24 . Stop H-3 Association v . Coleman .......................................... 25 . United States es re1. Tennessee Valley Authority v . Three Tracts of Land .......... 26 . United States v . 4.18 Acres of Land ........................................ 27 . Ad Hoc Committee to Save the Old Carnegie Library Building v . City of Atlanta .... 28 . Coalition for Responsible Regional Development v . Coleman ................... 29. Dixon v . Coleman ...................................................... 30 . Hart v . Denver Urban Renewal Authority ................................... 3 1. Philadelphia Council of Neighborhood Organizations v . Coleman ................ 32 . Citizens' Committee for Environnlental Protection v . United States Coast Guard .... 33 . Citizens' Defense Fund v . Gallagher ....................................... 34 . District of Columbia Federation of Civic Associations v . Adams ................. 35 . Evansv.Train ......................................................... 36 . Hall County Historical Society v . Georgia Departmei~tof Transportation ........... 37 . Historic Preservation of Shreveport 11. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare 38 . Inrnan Park Restoration, Inc . v . Urban Mass Transportation Administration ........ 39 . Libby Rod & Gun Club . Poteet .......................................... 40 . United States v . 45,149.58 Acres yf Land ................................... 41 . Weintraub v . Rural Electrification Administration ............................. Case Page No . 42 . Aluli v . Brown ............................................................. 43 . Blue Grass Land & Nature Trust. Inc . v. Adarns .................................. 44 . Central Oklahonla Prese~~lationAlliance. Inc . v . Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Authority 45. City of Columbia v . Soloman ................................................. 46 . Cobble Hill Association v . Adams ............................................. 47 . Nehring v . Harris ........................................................... 48. Soucheray v . Corps of Engineers .............................................. 49 . Aertson v. Landrie~~......................................................... 50. Birmingham Realty Conlpany v . General Seivices Administration .................... 51 . Capitol Hill Restoration Society v . Heimann ..................................... 52. Carson v . Alvord ........................................................... 53 . Committee to Save the Fos Building v . Birmingham Branch of the Federal Reserve Bank . 54 . Don't Tear it Down, Inc. v . Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation ........... 55. Historic Green Springs, Inc . v . Bergland ........................................ 56. Hoe v . Alesander ........................................................... 57 . Kansasv.Adams ........................................................... 58. National Center for Preservation Law v . Landrieu ................................. 59. Neighborhood Developmnent Cor-poration v . Advisoly Cotrncil on Historic Preservation ... 60. Sequoyah v . Tennessee Valley A~ltl~ority........................................ 61. Wisconsin Heritages, Inc . v . Hanis ............................................. 62. Bennett v . Taylor ........................................................... 63. Black Hills Alliance v . Regional Forester ........................................ 64. Catholic Action of HnwaiiPeace Education
Load more

Recommended publications
  • FISCAL YEAR 2020 ANNUAL REPORT March 2021
    FISCAL YEAR 2020 ANNUAL REPORT March 2021 FCRPS Cultural Resources Program Rock imagery before and after graffiti removal at McNary site 45BN1753. FY 2020 Annual Report Under the FCRPS Systemwide Programmatic Agreement for the Management of Historic Properties – March 2021 This page intentionally left blank. 2 FY 2020 Annual Report Under the FCRPS Systemwide Programmatic Agreement for the Management of Historic Properties – March 2021 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS APE Area of Potential Effects ARPA Archaeological Resource Protection Act BPA Bonneville Power Administration CFR Code of Federal Regulations Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CRITFE Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fisheries Enforcement CRMP Cultural Resources Management Plan CSKT Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation CTCR Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation CTUIR Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation CTWSRO Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon DAHP Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation FCRPS Federal Columbia River Power System FCRPS Program FCRPS Cultural Resource Program FNF Flathead National Forest FY Fiscal year GIS Geographic Information Systems H/A CTCR History/Archaeology Program HMU Habitat management unit HPMP Historic Property Management Plan HPRCSIT Historic Property of Religious and Cultural Significance to Indian Tribes ID Idaho ISU Idaho State University KNF Kootenai National Forest 3 FY 2020 Annual Report Under the FCRPS Systemwide Programmatic Agreement for the Management of Historic Properties – March 2021 Lead Federal Bonneville Power Administration, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Agencies and the Bureau of Reclamation LiDAR Light detection and ranging MPD Multiple Property Documentation MT Montana NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act Nez Perce/NPT Nez Perce Tribe NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NPS National Park Service NPTCRP Nez Perce Tribe Cultural Resource Program NRHP National Register of Historic Places NWP Portland District, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Illinois Nature Preserves Commission Minutes of the 206
    Illinois Nature Preserves Commission Minutes of the 206th Meeting (Approved at the 207th Meeting) Burpee Museum of Natural History 737 North Main Street Rockford, IL 61103 Tuesday, September 21, 2010 206-1) Call to Order, Roll Call, and Introduction of Attendees At 10:05 a.m., pursuant to the Call to Order of Chair Riddell, the meeting began. Deborah Stone read the roll call. Members present: George Covington, Donnie Dann, Ronald Flemal, Richard Keating, William McClain, Jill Riddell, and Lauren Rosenthal. Members absent: Mare Payne and David Thomas. Chair Riddell stated that the Governor has appointed the following Commissioners: George M. Covington (replacing Harry Drucker), Donald (Donnie) R. Dann (replacing Bruce Ross- Shannon), William E. McClain (replacing Jill Allread), and Dr. David L. Thomas (replacing John Schwegman). It was moved by Rosenthal, seconded by Flemal, and carried that the following resolution be approved: The Illinois Nature Preserves Commission wishes to recognize the contributions of Jill Allread during her tenure as a Commissioner from 2000 to 2010. Jill served with distinction as Chair of the Commission from 2002 to 2004. She will be remembered for her clear sense of direction, her problem solving abilities, and her leadership in taking the Commission’s message to the broader public. Her years of service with the Commission and her continuing commitment to and advocacy for the Commission will always be greatly appreciated. (Resolution 2089) It was moved by Rosenthal, seconded by Flemal, and carried that the following resolution be approved: The Illinois Nature Preserves Commission wishes to recognize the contributions of Harry Drucker during his tenure as a Commissioner from 2001 to 2010.
    [Show full text]
  • Final Environmental Impact Statement Appendices
    This document can be accessed on the Shawnee National Forest website: www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/shawnee. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Shawnee National Forest Forest Plan FEIS Appendix A – Forest Plan Revision Issues and Public Involvement APPENDIX A FOREST PLAN REVISION ISSUES AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT I. INTRODUCTION The first SNF Land and Resource Management Plan (Plan) was approved on November 24, 1986. In 1988, following 23 administrative appeals, the Forest met with appellants and reached a settlement agreement. Significant changes in the Plan resulted in an amended Forest Plan signed in 1992. A lawsuit on nine counts was filed against the Plan in 1994. The court ruled in favor of the Forest Service on five counts and in favor of the plaintiffs on four. The court remanded the entire Plan, but allowed implementation, enjoining specific activities, including commercial, hardwood-timber harvest, ATV trail designation and oil and gas development.
    [Show full text]
  • National Register of Historic Places Inventoiynomination Form 1. Name
    ___ _______ _____ I.. .- i.,,.z,...,.....a.......... __-_........,_...-4.. - -*_3__********_***____ - 0MB No 1024-0010 NP:’, orm ¶0-900 Cxp, 10-31-84 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service For NPS use only National Register of Historic Places received InventoiyNomination Form date entered See instructions in How to Complete National Register Forms Type all entries-complete applicable sections 1. Name -- t’istoric__Oakland Historic District and or common 2. Location street& number VictoryHigway_____ N. A Congressional District #2 city.town Burrillyille N.vicinityot Hon. Claudine Schneider state Rhode Is land code 44 county Providence code 007 3. Classification Category Ownership Status - Present Use ._L district public x occupied agriculture museum buildings private x unoccupied ._JL commercial park structure X.both - work in progress educational - X private residence site Public Acquisition Accessible entertainment religious object NA.in process _.X yes: restricted government scientific being considered - yes: unrestricted X industrial transportation Opel, a c’c no military . other: 4. Owner of Property name Multiple see owners list on file at R. I .11. p . C. street & number city, town vicinity of. state 5. Location Of Legal Description - courthouse, registry of deeds, etc. Burril lville Town Hal I street& number 70 Main Street city,town l:!arrisville stateRhode island 02833 6. Representation in Existing Surveys Historic and Architectural Resources title of Burrillville--A Preliminaryhas this property been determined
    [Show full text]
  • Master Plan 2008 Re- Examination
    TOWN OF MORRISTOWN MORRIS COUNTY, NEW JERSEY MASTER PLAN 2008 RE- EXAMINATION 2003 Master Plan Prepared by and adopted by The Morristown Planning Board August 14, 2003 Re-examination prepared by and adopted by the Morristown Planning Board September 25, 2008 Morristown Master Plan Re-Examination 2008 TRANSMITTAL AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS August 28, 2008 Chairwoman Mary Dougherty Morristown Planning Board 200 South Street Morristown, New Jersey 07963 Dear Chairwoman Dougherty: I am pleased to submit to the Planning Board this 2008 Re-examination of the 2003 Master Plan. The Re-examination was prepared in accordance with the provisions of NJSA40:55D-89. It was presented to the Board and posted on the Town’s web site on July 11, 2008 and discussed by the Board at it’s July 24, 2008 meeting. Because of their age and near obsolescence, the Zone Map, Schedule I and Schedule II were the first elements of the Master Plan to be re-examined. These documents were reviewed by the Long Range Planning Committee of the Planning Board and the public at four meetings between November 2006 and February 2007. Subsequently, they were reviewed by the full Planning Board and the public at two meetings in March 2007. They were presented to the Council on April 10, 2007 and after several meetings were approved on September 11, 2007. Note that this reexamination does not contain a Housing Element. Since the COAH regulations have not been finalized by the State as of this writing, the basic legislation necessary to prepare the Housing Element is yet to be enacted.
    [Show full text]
  • Presentation to the City Council of the Hailey Historic Preservation Commission Recommendations: Recap 3 Public Workshops & Public Comment
    The Hailey Historic Preservation Commission Preserving Hailey’s Heritage and Sense of Place Recommendations for the City Council City Council Meeting Presentation to the City Council of the Hailey Historic Preservation Commission recommendations: Recap 3 Public Workshops & public comment. Welcome to all. Thank you for coming! It is our goal that you meet the Hailey Historic Preservation Commission (HPC), and learn about our mission and what we’ve been working on. We’d like to discuss why preservation is important to Hailey, and tell you about our goals and some of the projects we’ve accomplished. We’d like to discuss some draft recommendations to the City Council to create an Historic District as well as Designation of Historic Properties on a volunteer basis. Additionally, we’d like to celebrate some of the fine preservation efforts in Hailey! And finally, we’d love to recruit some new members and volunteers! 1 The Hailey Historic Preservation Commission The HHPC was first established in 1987… It was re-established by ordinance in March 14, 2005. HHPC Board Denise Jackson Ford, Chair Anna Mathieu, Vice Chair Rob Lonning, Secretary Teddie Daley Joan Davies Julie Evans Laura Hall John Seiller Taylor Walker Rick Davis, City Council Liaison Meetings The HHPC meets at 6:30 PM on the last Tuesday of each month at the Hailey City Hall. Introduction: We are a volunteer board, with a wide range of experiences. We are a landscape architect, realtors, developers, the director of the Blaine County Historical Museum, and a lawyer and former P&Z commissioner. Some of us live in old Hailey, all of us love it.
    [Show full text]
  • Toiyabe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan Table of Contents
    United States Department of Agriculture NATIONAL FOREST PREFACE This National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) was developed to direct the management of the Toiyabe National Forest. The goal df the Plan is to provide a management program reflective of a mixture of management activities that allow use and protection of Forest resources; fulfill legislative requirements; and address local, regional, and national issues and concerns. To accomplish this, the Forest Plan: SPECIFIES THE STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES AND THE APPROXIMATE TIMING AND VICINITY OF THE PRACTICES NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE THAT DIRECTION; AND ESTABLISHES THE MONITORING AND EVALUATION REQUIREMENTS NEEDED TO ENSURE THAT THE DIRECTION IS CARRIED OUT AND TO DETERMINE HOW WELL OUTPUTS AND EFFECTS WERE PREDICTED. The Forest Plan will be reviewed (and updated if necessary) at least every five years. It will be revised on a IO- to 15-year cycle. Preparation of the Forest Plan is required by the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) as amended by the National Forest Management Act (NFMA). Assessment of its environmental impacts is required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the implementing regulations of NFMA (36 WR 219). The Forest Plan replaces all previous resource management plans prepared for the Toiyabe National Forest. Upon approval of the Forest Plan, all subsequent activities affecting the Forest must be in compliance with the Forest Plan. In addition, all permits, contracts and other instruments for the use and 0 occupancy of National Forest System lands mst be in conformance with the Forest Plan. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANNINC LEVELS Development of this Forest Plan occurs within the framework of Forest Service regional and national planning.
    [Show full text]
  • Presetvation Oklahoma Unveils 2001 List Of
    January 2001 Volume 7, number 2 Presetvation Oklahoma unveils 2001 List of LIST ADVISORY COUNCIL ADOPTS NEW On Saturday, Januq 6, Preservation Oklahoma, Inc. announced its 2001 List of REQUUTIONII The * PAOE Z - Oklahoma's Most Endangered Historic Properties. event, which took place at the First Presbyterian Church's historic Bemsen Community Life Center in downtown Tulsa, TWO SuWEla included a reception, the unveiling of the new lisf and the seventh in a series of lectures UNDERWAY IN STATE SHPO OFFERS in conjunction with the Most Endangered List traveling exhibit. NATIONALRLQISTER NOMINATIONGRANTII Approximately 40 Preservation Oklahoma members and members of the press were - PADL 3 - on hand as former executive director Robert K. Erwin supervised the unveiling, assisted by Preservation Oklahoma Board President Ralph McCalmont and several noted EIQHT NEWLISTINDI IN NATIONALREUISTER members of the preservation community: Stacey Bayles, executive director for the - PAQE 4 - American Institute of Architects Eastem Oklahoma Chapter; Bret Carter, Preservation Oklahoma member and part of the Ponca City Preservation Commission; Susan Guthrie A CLOSE^ LOOK AT THE THREENEW MOST Dunham, Preservation Oklahoma board member and trustee for the National Trust for ENDANQERED LIET PROPERTIESFOR ZOO1 Historic Preservation; Mama Ellard, former Preservation Oklahoma board president and - PAQE 5 - past chairman of the Oklahoma City Historical Preservation and Landmark Commission; Marty Newman, former president of Preservation Oklahoma, advisor to the National CALENOAROFEVENTS ENID SET FOR 13TH Trust for Historic Preservation, and former board member of Preservation Action; ANNUAL STATEWIOE PRESERVATION Catherine Montgomery, architect for the State Historic Preservation Office, and Todd CONFERENCE - PAQE 6 - Scott, architect for the Oklahoma Main Street Program.
    [Show full text]
  • Fsh 2309.12 – Heritage Program Handbook
    FSH 2309.12 – HERITAGE PROGRAM HANDBOOK TABLE OF CONTENTS 0 CODE ............................................................................................................................ 1 Definitions ................................................................................................................. 1 Qualifications and Training ...................................................................................... 7 CHAPTER 1 - CONSULTATION & COORDINATION .................................................... 13 CHAPTER 2 – PLANNING ............................................................................................. 38 CHAPTER 3 – INVENTORY, EVALUATION, & USE ALLOCATION ............................. 47 CHAPTER 4 – PROTECTION AND STEWARDSHIP ..................................................... 66 CHAPTER 5 - PUBLIC OUTREACH .............................................................................. 96 CHAPTER 6 – MANAGEMENT OF HERITAGE COLLECTIONS ................................. 111 CHAPTER 7 – PERMITS, CONTRACTS, AND AGREEMENTS .................................. 126 CHAPTER 8 – INFORMATION MANAGEMENT & REPORTING ................................. 141 HERITAGE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT 2309.05 - Definitions -A- Adaptive Reuse: restoration or rehabilitation of an historic property such that it may be used for purposes other than its original purpose. Adaptive reuse may necessitate alterations to allow for the new use, but such alterations will maintain the historic integrity of the features that make the property historically
    [Show full text]
  • A Context for Common Historic Bridge Types
    A Context For Common Historic Bridge Types NCHRP Project 25-25, Task 15 Prepared for The National Cooperative Highway Research Program Transportation Research Council National Research Council Prepared By Parsons Brinckerhoff and Engineering and Industrial Heritage October 2005 NCHRP Project 25-25, Task 15 A Context For Common Historic Bridge Types TRANSPORATION RESEARCH BOARD NAS-NRC PRIVILEGED DOCUMENT This report, not released for publication, is furnished for review to members or participants in the work of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). It is to be regarded as fully privileged, and dissemination of the information included herein must be approved by the NCHRP. Prepared for The National Cooperative Highway Research Program Transportation Research Council National Research Council Prepared By Parsons Brinckerhoff and Engineering and Industrial Heritage October 2005 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SPONSORSHIP This work was sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration, and was conducted in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, which is administered by the Transportation Research Board of the National Research Council. DISCLAIMER The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in the report are those of the research team. They are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, the Federal Highway Administration, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, or the individual states participating in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program. i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The research reported herein was performed under NCHRP Project 25-25, Task 15, by Parsons Brinckerhoff and Engineering and Industrial Heritage. Margaret Slater, AICP, of Parsons Brinckerhoff (PB) was principal investigator for this project and led the preparation of the report.
    [Show full text]
  • Harrisville Mill Village Historic District
    ?Ft Foim 10.900.. 0MB No.1024-0016 p.tZ Eip. 10-31.44 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service FwNPSuseordy National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination Form Continuation sheet 3 item number 7 Page 4 - On soS streets, the sequences of odd and even street numbers do not strictly correspond to each other for example., on East Avenue, number 18 is opposite number 47. In the inventory, entries have been arranged in.numerical order, without regard for the actual physical contiguity of buildings on the street. Entries for buildings or structures without address numbers Universalist Church, Harrisville Mill Dam, etc. have been placed under street headings in the same sequence in which they appear on the street. New Village The New Village *is a group of 22 neo-Georgian single-family dwellings erected in 1918 by the Stillwater Company as housing for Harrisville Mill employees. They were all designed by Providence architects Jackson, Robertson and Adams. All have 2 stories, rectangular-block massing, a 5-bay facade, a central entrance, and a side porch, and all originally had clapboards. The houses were differentiated only by variations in roof forms and entrance enframements. Subsequent additions and changes in wall cover and porches have created greater differences than were originally intended but the buildings still have strong similarities and visual unity. New Village houses are located on Burrill Road, North Hill Road numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8,10, 12, Park Avenue numbers 2, 4, 6, 8; and Steere Street numbers 1, 3, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17.
    [Show full text]
  • COVERING HOMICIDE CALENDAR a DART CENTER TIP SHEET NEWSGATHERING and REPORTING STAGE of EVENTS Remember This Is About a Person
    August 29, 2018 Iowa Newspaper Association Volume 35 Issue #33 www.INAnews.com COVERING HOMICIDE CALENDAR A DART CENTER TIP SHEET NEWSGATHERING AND REPORTING STAGE of EVENTS Remember this is about a person. When covering a homicide, remember the event is not simply another crime hen covering homicide, a reporter must approach the statistic; it's about a human being – someone who was a WEBINARS incident with caution, sensitivity and tact. friend, a daughter or son, a mother, or a colleague to someone. Reporting on homicide is difficult no matter Public Notice Webinar W It’s important to tell the story from a human perspective. Friday, September 14 what stage you are at in your journalistic career. A homicide Get details on the case. Check police records and find may result from a mass shooting, a murder, intimate partner out as much as you can about the situation from police. SEMINARS violence that led to a death or an accident that led to a death. Has the crime been classified a homicide or something Mauck Stoufer Family, friends, and colleagues of victims of homicide else? Keep in mind that police records may not always be Professional Improvement will be in a fragile state so it’s important to handle the news accurate. Misinformation is possible and common. Always Workshop gathering process professionally and sensitively. Covering corroborate your information with other sources. Don’t rush Thursday, October 4 homicide also requires significant knowledge of the case at to publish, especially in a breaking news moment, unless you hand, and of crime and legal terms.
    [Show full text]