History worth saving? Show Lindbergh the money
“The idea that we can’t afford attention to history is ridiculous and terribly shortsighted.”
— Elmer Andersen, former Republican governor of Minnesota and founder of the Morrison County Record’s parent company, ECM Publishers.
Back in 2003, Minnesota was faced with a $4.2 billion deficit. In looking for ways to save money, the state targeted history. The Minnesota Historical Society (MHS) budget was cut by $4.2 million, forcing MHS Director Nina Archabal to cut the hours of 240 workers, reduce hours at history museums and consider closing the doors to the Hill House in St. Paul and the Oliver Kelley Farm in Elk River.
In the end, the sites remained open, but valuable resources were lost.
Unless you’ve been sleeping under a rock recently, you know that a similar scenario is playing itself out at the state capitol this year, with a proposed 15 percent cut in state appropriations to the MHS threatening the very existence of the Charles A. Lindbergh Historic Site in Little Falls.
You also know that a grassroots effort has begun to rescue the Lindbergh site from the chopping block. That campaign is urging residents to pick up pre-packaged letters which they can sign and mail on to the capitol, urging the governor and legislators to consider alternative cuts.
What you may not know, is that in the letter, and in several news reports over the last couple of weeks, it has been erroneously stated that the Lindbergh site “attracts 10,000 outside visitors to the community every year.”
In fact, the Lindbergh site’s annual attendance hovers around 10,000. Total.
Charlie Pautler, the director and only full-time employee at the Lindbergh house, said the attendance break down is 35 percent local, 65 percent out-of-town. So really, 6,500 outside visitors.
Such a misrepresentation does not do justice to the cause, especially when the low visitation numbers is the largest of many reasons the Lindbergh site is being considered for closing, according to Archabal.
I know we’re talking about economic impact here, but let’s not exaggerate how much that impact is. Won’t the loss of Lindbergh be more devastating to the history of Little Falls, not the local economy?
And when even a 5 or 10 percent cut in the MHS budget will keep the site open but adversely affect Pautler’s available resources, we’re talking about damage to the site’s educational value, not the city’s economic stability.
Pautler is already stretched out thin, making the most of what little he has, but he isn’t complaining. Instead, he is rallying and so is the city.
But am I to assume they are rallying around a local cause, or a common good?
Currently, state funding accounts for 66 percent of the Minnesota Historical Society’s total operating budget. At the Lindbergh home, that number rises to 75 percent, with the state forking over $165,000 of the site’s $220,000 annual budget.
The Lindbergh home raises the remaining $55,000 through donations, gift and book sales, price of admission, membership costs and special grants. The Lindbergh site receives just $500 in donations annually. So donations account for less than 1 percent of the local contribution.
As the current system is set up, every Minnesota taxpayer helps fund every historical site, not just the one in their own community.
But what if Lindbergh is closed down, will Little Falls taxpayers still support their dollars going towards preserving the educational value of Ft. Snelling in St. Paul or Split Rock Lighthouse in Two Harbors?
Elmer Andersen once said that he was Minnesota’s governor during an era when Republicans weren’t afraid to raise taxes for the common good.
So, in this scenario, is the cause worth fighting for the historical significance of Little Falls and Charles A. Lindbergh, or the history of Minnesota as a whole?
Either way, I hope those concerned will make their donations heard along with their pens and voices.
Show Lindbergh the money.
