Bill Overview
Title: Southern Maryland National Heritage Area Act
Description: This bill establishes the Southern Maryland National Heritage Area in Maryland. The heritage area shall consist of land in St. Mary's, Calvert, Charles, and Prince George's Counties in Maryland. The Tri-County Council for Southern Maryland shall serve as the local coordinating entity for the heritage area. The council shall submit a management plan for the heritage area.
Sponsors: Rep. Hoyer, Steny H. [D-MD-5]
Target Audience
Population: Residents of St. Mary's, Calvert, Charles, and Prince George's Counties in Maryland
Estimated Size: 469240
- The bill focuses on the creation of a National Heritage Area (NHA) in Southern Maryland, which affects the population in the specified geographic area.
- The counties mentioned (St. Mary's, Calvert, Charles, and Prince George's) are within the state of Maryland, USA.
- The Tri-County Council for Southern Maryland is likely tasked with overseeing and managing the development and operations related to this NHA.
- National Heritage Areas often affect residents by impacting local economy, tourism, historical preservation, and land management practices.
Reasoning
- The target population is within the geographic bounds of Southern Maryland, significantly consisting of the specified counties. The policy's direct impact is thus localized, with broader implications for regional development regarded as spillover effects.
- Given the constraints on budget and size, the policy is likely to prioritize certain areas or aspects within Southern Maryland, such as enhancing cultural, historical, and tourist-centric elements that may influence job creation, community engagement, and regional pride.
- We must include a diverse range of experiences, from individuals deeply connected with cultural and historical aspects to those who may not perceive any change because they are less engaged with these community elements.
- The policy intends to foster cultural preservation and economic upliftment through tourism and improved management of heritage areas, making it imperative to consider potential short-term construction or tourism job opportunities, long-term cultural shifts, and pride development.
- The cost of implementation implies potential development projects or staffing increases within the heritage areas, leading to job creation. However, the impact may differ across demographics within the target counties, as heavily involved community members might perceive significant benefits, while others might not.
- Residents not directly linked to heritage, tourism, or cultural sectors might distantly affect the projected enhancement in community identity and possibly increased operational overheads through taxation or land use changes in the long run.
Simulated Interviews
Museum Curator (St. Mary's County, Maryland)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could increase local engagement in historical sites, benefiting preservation efforts and potentially increasing local funding for museums and cultural organizations.
- I'm excited about the potential for tourism and educational opportunities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
School Teacher (Calvert County, Maryland)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While the focus on heritage is valuable, I urge the inclusion of local educational programs to truly integrate and benefit the children.
- The initiative for the heritage area should also encompass environmental conservation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Retired (Prince George's County, Maryland)
Age: 53 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The initiative may indirectly improve my community's housing values and local infrastructure.
- I am skeptical whether there will be tangible benefits to residents like me who are less involved in heritage activities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Local Business Owner (Charles County, Maryland)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I anticipate that this policy might increase foot traffic in the area, boosting my business significantly.
- Heritage Area designation could indeed mean stronger community ties and economic benefits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
College Student (St. Mary's County, Maryland)
Age: 22 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns with my interests and could provide valuable real-world learning opportunities.
- I am enthusiastic about potential cultural events that the designation might facilitate.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Software Engineer (Calvert County, Maryland)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't expect this policy to impact me much as my work is remote, and my time in the area is limited to personal activities.
- Any perceived increase in community activities or facilities would be a passive advantage.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Farmer (Charles County, Maryland)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am cautious about any new land management policies that could affect farming operations negatively.
- Better heritage protection can deepen our regional pride but must ensure agricultural activities are respected.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Construction Worker (Prince George's County, Maryland)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this brings more job opportunities particularly in construction and maintenance.
- The policy could result in more stable employment through better-funded heritage-related projects.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Marketing Specialist (St. Mary's County, Maryland)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 12.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This new heritage designation could greatly enhance my field, making Southern Maryland a key tourist destination.
- I foresee excellent career growth as a result.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Healthcare Worker (Southern part of Prince George's County, Maryland)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I anticipate minimal impact on healthcare directly, though overall community health might benefit indirectly from increased community pride and cohesion.
- Hoping for indirectly improved quality of life in patient populations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $2500000)
Year 2: $1800000 (Low: $1300000, High: $2300000)
Year 3: $1800000 (Low: $1300000, High: $2300000)
Year 5: $1800000 (Low: $1300000, High: $2300000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The initial and ongoing costs for the national heritage area development and maintenance.
- The role of the Tri-County Council in overseeing and managing the heritage area operations.
- Potential changes in local economies due to increased tourism and cultural activities.
- The capacity for heritage area to attract visitors and consequently change the local business dynamics.