That's where I'm going with this. Mr. Noreau pointed out that there are various public-private partnerships that can evolve to actually facilitate the preservation.
On the public purpose, for example, let's step back in time and say a bed and breakfast operator wanted to take over Quirpon Lighthouse. They have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in fixing that structure up and brought it back to good historic and structural integrity. This bill would forbid that because it's not for a public purpose. It's for a private commercial purpose with obvious public advantages, but not for a public purpose.
This bill does not allow for a public-private partnership where ownership is transferred to a private sector operator as opposed to a not-for-profit corporation. Clearly a not-for-profit corporation, but not a private sector operator, could take over a lighthouse. Would I be correct in that conclusion?