14th September 2008, 02:57 PM
Posted by Gonetopot:
There is a moral argument for saying that we can only justify asking developers to pay for work that is required because of what they are going to do - ie, they must pay for mitigating the damage they will cause.
We do have our own academic objectives as archaeologists, but if the work we want to do for that purpose goes beyond what we can justifiably ask the developer to pay for then it is up to us to find other sources of funding. It is not sufficient to say 'there aren't any, so the developer has to pay' - why should they?
Getting completely away from the moral argument onto a pragmatic one - whatever the developers should pay for, the only reason we can make them pay for anything is because of a mandate given through planning law and policy. If we try to push the boundaries of what is covered by that policy beyond what was intended by it in one direction, we undermine the credibility of the whole system and can hardly blame them for trying to push in the other direction. Forcing developers to pay for archaeological work over and above the mitigation of the impacts they cause is pushing in exactly that way.
What we can legitimately do is push for changes in law and/or policy, but that is only likely to be successful if we can convince non-archaeologists in political positions that our case is reasonable.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Quote:quote:In defining what we work for, I think (putting tin helmet on) that it must always and vaguely be for the expansion of our understanding of archaeology, whether it was funded by government (in the past) or by developers (now). Just because the developers want a 'minimum' requirement, it doesnt mean we should pander to itThat's true, but it is also true that we must not go too far.
There is a moral argument for saying that we can only justify asking developers to pay for work that is required because of what they are going to do - ie, they must pay for mitigating the damage they will cause.
We do have our own academic objectives as archaeologists, but if the work we want to do for that purpose goes beyond what we can justifiably ask the developer to pay for then it is up to us to find other sources of funding. It is not sufficient to say 'there aren't any, so the developer has to pay' - why should they?
Getting completely away from the moral argument onto a pragmatic one - whatever the developers should pay for, the only reason we can make them pay for anything is because of a mandate given through planning law and policy. If we try to push the boundaries of what is covered by that policy beyond what was intended by it in one direction, we undermine the credibility of the whole system and can hardly blame them for trying to push in the other direction. Forcing developers to pay for archaeological work over and above the mitigation of the impacts they cause is pushing in exactly that way.
What we can legitimately do is push for changes in law and/or policy, but that is only likely to be successful if we can convince non-archaeologists in political positions that our case is reasonable.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished