- Joined
- Nov 30, 2011
- Messages
- 5,586
- Reaction score
- 2,420
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I'm all for this. I actually think states should be allowed to voluntarily assume the "ownership", maintenance/staffing, and revenue of any national park within their borders if they so choose. I haven't thought much into the stipulations that should be attached, restrictions placed upon the state's ability to alter or close the park upon assumption of ownership, etc. That's why I'm posting it here. Please, post 2 good things and 2 bad things you think could come of state's assuming ownership of national parks.
Good
1) More state revenue
2) State's would (most likely) be more reactive to park patrons concerns
Bad
1) States may buy parks only to shutter them and harvest it's natural resources
2) If a park begins to lose revenue with a park, there is financial backing to possibly make it profitable again.
Feds To Consider State Funding To Reopen National Parks : The Two-Way : NPR
Good
1) More state revenue
2) State's would (most likely) be more reactive to park patrons concerns
Bad
1) States may buy parks only to shutter them and harvest it's natural resources
2) If a park begins to lose revenue with a park, there is financial backing to possibly make it profitable again.
Feds To Consider State Funding To Reopen National Parks : The Two-Way : NPR