Bill Overview
Title: Baltimore National Heritage Area Reauthorization Act
Description: This bill extends the authority of the Department of the Interior to provide any assistance for the Baltimore National Heritage Area in Maryland through March 30, 2036. It also revises the map and modifies the boundaries of the heritage area.
Sponsors: Sen. Cardin, Benjamin L. [D-MD]
Target Audience
Population: Residents and stakeholders of the Baltimore National Heritage Area
Estimated Size: 300000
- The bill pertains to the Baltimore National Heritage Area, which is a specific region in Maryland.
- The heritage area reauthorization and boundary modifications will directly impact those residing within and near the Baltimore National Heritage Area.
- The impact extends to those involved in tourism, conservation, and historical preservation within the heritage area.
- Visitors and businesses that rely on the heritage area's attractions may also be affected by changes brought by the bill.
Reasoning
- The Baltimore National Heritage Area Reauthorization Act specifically targets those within the Baltimore National Heritage Area, impacting residents, businesses, and tourists.
- The policy is geographically limited to a specific region in Maryland, meaning most of the U.S. population remains unaffected.
- Budget constraints imply that only significant stakeholders and direct beneficiaries will notice major impacts immediately.
- Focus is on historical preservation, tourism enhancement, and community education, suggesting impacts mostly related to these sectors.
- Budget indicates modest direct funding per individual within the area, limiting immediate large-scale changes.
- A portion of the funds may indirectly affect broader city infrastructure benefiting locals and attracting tourists.
Simulated Interviews
Tourism Operator (Baltimore, MD)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is a great step towards improving our local historical sites.
- With better funding, we can attract more tourists and improve our offerings.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 4 |
History Professor (Baltimore, MD)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This reauthorization solidifies ongoing research projects and educational outreach.
- We will have more opportunities to engage with the community.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Environmental Scientist (Towson, MD)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The expanded boundaries might allow for more conservation projects.
- I hope the focus remains on sustainable development.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Retired (Baltimore, MD)
Age: 63 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I love seeing investment in our heritage areas.
- This should help keep our history alive for the next generation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
City Planner (Baltimore, MD)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The new boundaries require careful planning for urban resources.
- Smart integration can boost both conservation and local economy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Small Business Owner (Baltimore, MD)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More tourists could mean more business.
- The policy might help improve public spaces and infrastructure.
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 |
College Student (Baltimore, MD)
Age: 22 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This supports my studies and offers more volunteering opportunities.
- Preserving heritage is key to cultural studies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Conservationist (Baltimore, MD)
Age: 37 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm optimistic about the focus on historic preservation.
- We must balance ecological needs with tourism.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Local Historian (Baltimore, MD)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope the policy helps in documenting untold local histories.
- This should fund more preservation initiatives.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Real Estate Agent (Baltimore, MD)
Age: 41 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Modifications might drive property values if managed well.
- Heritage areas give character to neighborhoods.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2500000 (Low: $2000000, High: $3000000)
Year 2: $2500000 (Low: $2000000, High: $3000000)
Year 3: $2500000 (Low: $2000000, High: $3000000)
Year 5: $2500000 (Low: $2000000, High: $3000000)
Year 10: $2500000 (Low: $2000000, High: $3000000)
Year 100: $2500000 (Low: $2000000, High: $3000000)
Key Considerations
- Duration of support is strictly until 2036, creating a defined financial commitment from the federal government.
- Boundary changes could lead to a reevaluation of land use and associated economic activities.
- Potential increases in tourism must be balanced against the preservation of the heritage and cultural assets.