Comments on: Why Maine Needs Another National Park — Try Money

By: tyrone.sweetlick

tyrone.sweetlick — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 17:26:52 +0000

No, Ben, choice (or lack of) is not the only criteria in creating a subsidization. Consumers have a choice, just like the majority of NP visitors who choose to buy goods and services when at or near parks. Most of those goods and services are provided by private concessionaires. Besides, you had to buy the food you cook yourself from somewhere. Don’t try to tell me you grow and mill your own grains.

Most places likely employ pricing/markup that is not directly connected to the cost for that item only. So when you buy that Snickers bar, you’re likely subsidizing other more expensive services or goods.

Also, the improvements you’re against aren’t always in the park. The federal government doesn’t have much development control over those areas, relatively speaking. See West Yellowstone as an example.

BLM governance might actually be a good idea. It could introduce a lot of people to land use rules and processes seldom seen outside the west.

By: Artem

Artem — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 13:14:40 +0000

Sorry, meant ’1000′, got carried away.

By: Artem

Artem — Mon, 25 Feb 2013 13:13:50 +0000

Two things:
Are logging and recreation incompatible uses? There are lots of state forests that see logging, hiking, hunting, snowmobiling, the list goes on. So, instead of having to spend money on a park crew who cannot complete a tenth of the work to maintain an area, why not make money off sold logs, while requiring BMPs to maintain appropriate skid roads, restored landings, etc.

Second:
The 50 jobs are permanent, year-round jobs. The ’4000′ is minimum wage, I’m going to sell popsicles jobs for the summer. Also, not sure if the hotel jobs en route to the destination are counted, but I have a feeling they might be.

By: Ben

Ben — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 22:56:11 +0000

Tyrone, So consumers have no choice? Is that what you meant? Am I forced to pay for a good or service in the private sector or else they garnish my wages or send me to prison. And no I don’t stay or eat in the parks, I’m not a fan of those “improvements” I’m there to camp, hike, and cook my own food. And I don’t think cutting down the forest is a good idea either. I think BLM land is a better option, leaving it up to the people to decide what they want to do with the land. Once it becomes a Natl Park the list of restrictions ruins the place.

By: tyrone.sweetlick

tyrone.sweetlick — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 19:24:12 +0000

^Ben

As opposed to a private sector job subsidized by consumers? It’s amazing how many people are blinded by pride (insert favorite ideal here) to the point it hurts everyone. Can’t see the forest for the trees . . .

Besides, not all of those jobs would be government jobs. When is the last time you stayed in a government-run hotel or ate at a government-run restaurant? Enjoy those freedom fries?

By: Andy

Andy — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 18:50:48 +0000

Interestingly, the first thing I thought of when I saw this post was that it was a bunch of out-of-staters (Boston.com) interested in things that don’t concern them. That said (and having spent lots of time in T3R7 etc), a park might be a better use of the land than selling it to Plum Creek or some other out-of-state interests. Just let people hunt there.

By: Ben

Ben — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 17:43:04 +0000

Maybe the thought is that a Gov’t job is subsidized by the tax payer

By: Chuck Lafean

Chuck Lafean — Fri, 22 Feb 2013 17:24:16 +0000

Couple things:

I am a huge proponent of the new national park and was born in and live in Maine.

However, before you go writing the kind of blurb you wrote to intro this article, you gotta know a couple things about Mainers.

We are very independent.
If you weren’t born in Maine, you are from away, regardless of how long you have lived in Maine.
Mainers, especially those Mainers from the area the park will be in, don’t like anyone “from away”, partly because the only people that can afford to buy this wonderful land that is our heritage are from away and they generally follow buying said land with the erection of “No Trespassing” signs.
Roxanne Quimby (the driving force behind and landowner offering to donate the land for the park) is from away, and she has bought large chunks of Maine and has threatened no trespassing signs.
We are generally distrustful of government, especially the Federal government.

What the article says is true, but those saying it have little credibility in the minds of those who need to be sold. Quimby has done little to engender herself to the other stakeholders or to try to find a workable compromise with them.

If she would put the land into a trust at least in part managed by the other stakeholders and pulled back from direct involvement in the process, this might be something that could get done.