Bagism: Web Board
[Show Followups] [Post New Message]
 [Search Web Boards] [Web Boards Menu] [Letter Box Web Board]

Re: so the National Parks are Closed

Posted by **pycb** on Oct 2, 2013 at 11:39:23 AM:
In Reply to: Re: so the National Parks are Closed posted by **comic relief** on Oct 2, 2013 at 11:15:35 AM:

**what would be the big deal if the National Parks were permanently shuttered anyway?
**
**taken away from Federal control?
**
**why not simply turn them over the states that they are in to administer?
**
**the Feds could allocate the money that was in the budget to run that particular park for the 1st year & give it to the host state - after that it would be up to the state to decide how & if it should be funded with any proceeds coming from tourism going back to the state
**
**perhaps giving the state some sort of ongoing partial & time limited tax credit to help with the funding
**
**after all - isn't the Federal government's job to oversee & protect the nation as a whole (the common good/external threats) rather than overseeing acreage that resides within an individual state's boundaries?
**
**let the states determine the best way to handle & administer them in a way that's best for the state
**
**how did the Feds become "the groundskeepers" with the rest of the nation funding their operations for areas of land that reside within a given state & who benefit from the land being where it is?
**
**just a thought...........
*
*Greed will take over and the protected land will be sold off and developed. The state would look to 'benefit' from the land, and the land would be lost.
*
*Just a thought*

a possibility but I would think it remote - a large section of upstate NY (the Adirondacks) is currently under NYS control as a State Park & always has been - no exploitation there - very little development

think of how much land in each state is already under the administration of a State's Park Department - these would simply be folded into that Administration & handled the same way

they could always be deeded over with the caveat that they are not open for development & are to remain in their current undeveloped state

it would take the burden of funding them away from the Federal government thereby reducing Federal Spending by the same amount

if I understand the intent of the division of powers between the state & federal government correctly - the states were to have control of their own destinies with the federal government being established to deal with issues that effect the nation as a whole

somewhere along the line we seem to have allowed the Federal government to assume more & more control over local issues that probably should be in the State's control - hence the name UNITED STATES

it's the federal government that unites them & it's role is primarily common defense against external threats & to regulate business between the States - not to control things within the state's borders - I could be wrong in that & perhaps it's overly simplistic - but the states following the Civil War were reluctant to give up control but realized they needed a central government to resolve issues between states

I think regulation & administration of parkland belongs with the states who benefit from that land being in within their boundary

Followup Messages:

top of page

 

Home Web Chat Web Boards Discography Library Quiz Art & Poetry Links Store

Image Map -- text links below

Home | Web Chat | Web Boards | Discography | Library | Quiz | Art & Poetry | Links | Store

Produced by Sam Choukri
Frequently Asked Questions
Last updated on Oct 4, 2013