guest commentary by Daniel Maher
Editor’s note: Daniel Maher is the assistant professor of Anthropology and Sociology at the University of Arkansas at Fort Smith. His published works are “Vice in the Veil of Justice: Embedding Race and Gender in Frontier Tourism” (University of Arkansas, 2013) and “Frontier Complex: Remembering, Forgetting, and Profiting with Cultural Heritage Tourism” (University Press of Florida, 2016 estimated). He can be reached atDaniel.Maher@uafs.edu
Editor's note: Opinions, commentary and other essays posted in this space are wholly the view of the author(s). They may or may not represent the opinion of the owners of The City Wire.
In 1957 “Judge Parker’s” courtroom and gallows reopened for business as Fort Smith began its wager that selling its 19th century history to tourists would create an economic bonanza for the city.
This initial effort was incorporated into the National Park Service as a National Historic Site in 1961 and the city gradually added frontier elements over time: “Miss Laura’s” opened in the early 90s with the objective of bringing motor-coach tours off I-40; fantastic stories of Belle Starr swirled about town, and the monument to Bass Reeves was unveiled in May 2012.
Over this nearly 60-year period these sites have attracted tourists to the city and contributed to the local economy, but the collective pay-off in this wager has been well short of a gold rush. Regardless, talk of lassoing the “economic engine” of the United States Marshals Museum to Fort Smith began in 2003, and was accomplished in January 2007. Eight years later there has been a symbolic groundbreaking, but as easement issues and monetary support remain outstanding, there has been no actual construction.
A critical analysis of cultural heritage tourism at national sites as well as in Fort Smith, reveals the assumption that cultural heritage tourism will automatically trigger an economic windfall, and specifically in the case of Fort Smith, that the U. S. Marshals Museum will be an economic engine for the region, is counter to decades long trends within the tourism industry. I am not saying the Marshals Museum will not happen, nor that I am opposed to it. I agree the city is a great location for it and that it complements existing tourist sites quite well. I am simply saying that after reviewing national literature on the cultural heritage tourism industry, wagering on it does not appear to be the sure-fire-bet jack-pot it is portrayed to be.
In Fort Kearney, Neb., for example, The Great Platte River Road Archway opened with great fanfare in 2000 with predicted visitors of 300,000 annually. Optimism was running high with millions of cars zipping directly under the archway on I-80. The first year saw 250,000 visitors, but by 2012 it had declined to 50,000 a year, and bankruptcy was declared in 2013. Closer to home, for the past 21 years Oklahoma City has been trying to build The American Indian Cultural Center and Museum. After spending $91 million a nearly finished facility has sat boarded up for the past two years.
A third example of a tourist attraction that was believed would be a sure economic bet is the NASCAR Hall of Fame in Charlotte, N.C. In 2005 it was predicted that it would draw at least 400,000 a year if not up to 800,000. It has averaged 170,000 and the city of Charlotte owes $18 million in this venture that was hailed to be a “job creator” for the region.
Similar optimism and claims of being an “economic engine” have been attached to the U. S. Marshals Museum effort in Fort Smith, despite national trends, and despite the fact this same venture has already failed in two other cities. In 1988 Oklahoma City began hearing talk of a U. S. Marshals Memorial that would have a second phase of construction to include a museum. It was widely stated then that Oklahoma City was a great fit for the museum and that and it would draw 300,000 a year. In November 1989 a memorial was dedicated and held great promise as a memorial and museum for the Marshals Service. Within a year all these hopes had been dashed with $347,000 in construction debt and much finger pointing.
Within a year it was announced that the Wyoming Territorial Park (WTP) in Laramie, Wyoming had won the bid for the Marshals Museum. More technically speaking, the “Marshals Museum” consisted of a Smithsonian constructed traveling exhibit called “America’s Star” that was housed within the WTP. Primary documents from the 10 years it was in Laramie reveal a continuous struggle to raise funds for a full-blown museum. Minutes from the National U. S. Marshals Museum Trustees meeting from Nov. 12, 1998, for example, reflect a balance of less than $12,000 in the coffers while attempting many different fundraisers.
By 2002 the WTP had put a lien on the stored exhibit and the Marshals Service was suing them in return. Just like Oklahoma City, the reasons for the museum failing in Laramie are varied and complex. Interestingly, the failures in each location did not cause much pause for the next towns to vigorously compete for securing the museum for themselves. Within a year, July 2003, it was reported that then U.S. Rep. John Boozman, R-Rogers, was in talks with Marshals Service Director Benigno Reyna to bring the museum to Fort Smith. By the end of 2003 there was a good deal of enthusiasm for this project in Fort Smith.
Between 2003 and 2007 there was bold talk of up to $25 million in state money coming to the project estimated to cost $10 million to $15 million. By the end of 2007 that $25 million of taxpayer support had turned into $2 million while the cost of the project had jumped to $50 million. In the eight years that have passed since the Marshals Museum was awarded to Fort Smith it reports having raised $19.5 million including cash, pledges, and the value of the donated land – but as that figure does not subtract what has been spent on salaries, consultants, architects, etc., it is presumably much less.
In addition to the challenge of raising a significant amount of more money (and the new collector coins will not help in this regard as the money cannot be used for construction costs), the Marshals Museum is also faced with an industry that has been on a downward slope for decades. Sites of national prominence such as Colonial Williamsburg, Museum of the Confederacy, Monticello, and Mount Vernon have all seen their attendances decline. A museum research group, Reach Advisors has found that the decline in visitors has been happening for decades, dropping by over a third, to the tune of 8 million fewer visitors to history museums.
A study conducted by the University of Chicago Cultural Policy Center examined new museum construction between 1994-2008 at costs ranging from $4 million to $335 million. They found overruns in construction cost in 80% of those cases, and that the much counted on donor support failed to materialize after opening. A third conclusion they reached is that the supply of museums has surpassed demand. This is not the portrait of an industry full of “economic engines.”
Still, it is argued, the Marshals Museum will be a companion to the very successful Crystal Bridges and the Clinton Presidential Library catching visitors as they travel to these sites. First, being underwritten by Walton money with top-notch artwork on display, or being a presidential library with valued archives being accessed by researchers in a capital city, is quite different than being a privately supported museum in Fort Smith. Second, it is a big assumption to make that the same demographic that visits these two sites is also interested in museums such as the Marshals Museum. How will the museum attract a significantly different or new group of visitors than those who already come to Fort Smith?
One response to this question is the planned exhibits that will feature the role the U.S. Marshals Service has played in civil rights events. But, why would individuals looking for civil rights tourism go to the Marshals Museum when they can go to nearby sites where significant moments in American civil rights history actually took place – to Little Rock Central High where desegregation happened, or to Memphis to the National Civil Rights Museum, literally built around the Lorraine Motel where Dr. King was assassinated?
Furthermore, we are not on the interstate between any of these places (the I-49/I-40 exchange is in Alma, after all), nor is Fort Smith comparable to Memphis, Little Rock, or Northwest Arkansas when it comes to additional amenities. Moreover, while the museum will contain great educational opportunities, school children are not tourists who fill their cars up with gas, stay in hotels, and eat in restaurants.
The wager on frontier tourism is a genuine gamble: if we build the Marshals Museum, will tourists come in the droves that are being projected – up to 165,000 annually? If museums such as this were truly the economic engines they are claimed to be, they would happen far more often, and there would certainly already be a Marshals Museum somewhere.
I believe Fort Smith is a great location to have the U.S. Marshals Museum, and I want it to succeed, but the projected results are incommensurate with the research findings on the cultural heritage tourism industry. There are ways to reduce the risk factor in this wager, and the final role of the dice remains to be seen.