Bill Overview
Title: Maurice D. Hinchey Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area Reauthorization Act
Description: This bill extends the authority of the Department of the Interior to make any grant or provide any assistance for the Maurice D. Hinchey Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area in New York through FY2037.
Sponsors: Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals living in or visiting the Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area
Estimated Size: 3000000
- The bill pertains to the Maurice D. Hinchey Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area, located in New York.
- The Hudson River Valley is known for its historical and cultural significance, attracting both residents and tourists.
- Residents in the Hudson Valley area, specifically those living in or near the National Heritage Area, will be most directly impacted.
- Tourists visiting the Hudson Valley, who are often from the wider U.S. and international locations, might also experience indirect impacts.
- Local businesses, particularly those in the tourism and hospitality industries, could be affected by changes in funding or assistance to the Heritage Area.
Reasoning
- About 2.4 million people reside in the Hudson Valley, making them the primary direct impact group.
- Tourists add an occasional, indirect population that fluctuates seasonally and can affect findings.
- Local businesses, especially in tourism and hospitality, are directly tied to the area's economic well-being.
- The policy's budget impacts are constrained mostly to local public programs, potentially enhancing infrastructure, preservation efforts, and cultural activities.
- The target funding and grants are spread across educational and preservation initiatives, likely improving regional cultural richness and tourism appeal.
Simulated Interviews
History professor (Poughkeepsie, NY)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The reauthorization is crucial for preserving our cultural heritage.
- The funding can significantly boost educational programs related to the area's history.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Tourist (New York, NY)
Age: 58 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy helps maintain the scenic and cultural attractions that draw me to the region.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Small business owner (Hudson, NY)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More tourists mean more business, so I'm hopeful this policy increase will help.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Retired (Albany, NY)
Age: 70 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is wonderful if it keeps trails and historic sites beautiful and accessible.
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 |
Environmental activist (Kingston, NY)
Age: 27 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy might enhance conservation efforts, which are crucial for biodiversity.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Cultural researcher (Boston, MA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Grants could lead to new research opportunities, which I find exciting.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Art gallery owner (Beacon, NY)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Enhanced heritage area funding can bring more art tourists, boosting business.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Corporate professional (Manhattan, NY)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Investments in historic areas can enhance leisure activities I enjoy during holidays.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Student (Yonkers, NY)
Age: 29 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this policy allows for more student access to learning opportunities.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Retired horticulturist (Saratoga Springs, NY)
Age: 65 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Funding for the area's heritage sites means preserving the gardens I love visiting.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2000000 (Low: $1800000, High: $2200000)
Year 2: $2100000 (Low: $1900000, High: $2300000)
Year 3: $2200000 (Low: $2000000, High: $2400000)
Year 5: $2500000 (Low: $2300000, High: $2700000)
Year 10: $3000000 (Low: $2800000, High: $3200000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $4800000, High: $5200000)
Key Considerations
- The bill extends funding authority through FY2037, assuming consistent or modestly increasing levels of grants and support.
- National Heritage Areas often require federal and local collaboration for success.
- Visitor numbers and subsequent impacts can be highly variable based on economic conditions and external factors like pandemics or climate events.