30th May 2004, 06:24 PM
A major reason why dealing with archaeological concerns on development sites is given such short shrift is that, as was noted in the opening question, is that it is seen as a debit, with few, if any, redeeming (i.e., profitable)aspects. This is partly because the laws are coercive in nature, rarely offering more than token benefits for compliance, while theatening massive penalties for noncompliance. It is also because cultural resource management units have shown little in the way of creative approaches, often failing to offer to work with their clients to maximise the public relations benefits that can derive from treatment of the sites involved. The public appetite for our human past is insatiable, and marketed properly, every archaeological project has the potential of being a public realtions/education/community development and relations bonanza for the outfit paying for it. When archaeolgy can be made profitable, developers become willing - if not eager - to do it and do it well.
As to subsidizing projects, large and small, I would suggest that a tax rebate/deduction, in the amount of the costs incurred, spread over 5 to 10 years (depending on the circumstances of the project and the 'developer'), could go a long way towards easing the burden on the developer, without involving disasterous outlays of cash by either government (which is us, paying out our tax monies) or the private parties doing the development.
Michael O.
As to subsidizing projects, large and small, I would suggest that a tax rebate/deduction, in the amount of the costs incurred, spread over 5 to 10 years (depending on the circumstances of the project and the 'developer'), could go a long way towards easing the burden on the developer, without involving disasterous outlays of cash by either government (which is us, paying out our tax monies) or the private parties doing the development.
Michael O.