Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
This bill amends the Dayton Aviation Heritage Preservation Act of 1992 to adjust the boundary of the Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park by adding approximately one acre of land in Dayton, Ohio, as depicted on a February 2023 map.
The text adds a new subsection to the statute that formally includes the approximately 1-acre parcel within the park boundary.
The bill text does not specify acquisition method, source of funding, or other implementation details in the excerpt provided.
On content alone, this is a narrow, technical amendment that typically faces low substantive opposition and minimal fiscal impact. Such local boundary additions often advance through committee and floor consideration with bipartisan support or by unanimous consent, making them relatively likely to be enacted. The score reflects routine likelihood tempered by procedural factors (especially in the Senate) and remaining uncertainties about acquisition and funding.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted administrative/operational amendment that directly inserts a boundary adjustment into existing statute. It clearly identifies the statutory location for the change and the approximate acreage, but it provides minimal implementation, fiscal, and contingency detail.
Degree of comfort with federal boundary expansion and the federal footprint — conservatives are more cautious while the left is welcoming.
Degree of comfort with federal boundary expansion and the federal footprint — conservatives are more cautious while the left is welcoming.
A mainstream progressive would likely view the bill favorably as a modest expansion of a nationally significant historic park that preserves the Wright Brothers’ legacy and enhances public access to cultural heritage.
They would appreciate federal protection for a site of educational and historical importance and possible local economic benefits from tourism.
They would also want assurance that the addition supports public access, equitable interpretation, and adequate federal funding for maintenance.
A pragmatic moderate would generally regard this as a small, low‑stakes boundary adjustment that preserves a historic site while likely imposing limited fiscal or regulatory burden.
They would want clarity about how the land is to be acquired, any costs to the federal government or local taxpayers, and whether local stakeholders and governments support the change.
If acquisition is voluntary or donated and recurring costs are minimal, a centrist would probably support the bill; if it requires new, significant appropriations or contentious takings, they would seek changes.
A mainstream conservative would be cautious about any expansion of federal park boundaries because it increases the federal footprint and could create new spending or regulatory effects.
However, because this is a very small (approximately 1 acre) addition to a historically significant site associated with American innovation, many conservatives may view it as an acceptable or even positive symbolic action so long as it does not involve compelled takings or significant taxpayer costs.
They would press for protections of property rights, local control, and assurance that the addition won’t lead to further federal encroachment or new unfunded mandates.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
On content alone, this is a narrow, technical amendment that typically faces low substantive opposition and minimal fiscal impact. Such local boundary additions often advance through committee and floor consideration with bipartisan support or by unanimous consent, making them relatively likely to be enacted. The score reflects routine likelihood tempered by procedural factors (especially in the Senate) and remaining uncertainties about acquisition and funding.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Degree of comfort with federal boundary expansion and the federal footprint — conservatives are more cautious while the left is welcoming.
On content alone, this is a narrow, technical amendment that typically faces low substantive opposition and minimal fiscal impact. Such loc…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a narrowly targeted administrative/operational amendment that directly inserts a boundary adjustment into existing statute. It clearly identifies the statutory loc…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.