3 ms·
I'm surprised (but pleased) that the federal government hasn't simply used eminent domain to seize all of the private land within national parks. The idealisti
by ClintEhrlich 11y ago
I'm surprised (but pleased) that the federal government hasn't simply used eminent domain to seize all of the private land within national parks.
The idealistic side of me wants to believe that it's because these people aren't interfering with the purpose of the park(s), and so there is no reason to force them out. But the cynical side of me says that it's more likely that the individuals who own this land are so rich that taking action against them would be impracticable politically.
- kijin 11y agoNot everyone owns a luxury resort. Most of the landowners probably aren't that rich. They just happened to own some rural land when the surrounding area was declared a national park, and most rural land isn't particularly valuable. As for the government, why waste time and money on a politically unpopular move (eminent domain) when they have no immediate use for that land? Since most rural land is cheap, buying might be cheaper than the cost of a potential lawsuit. Sooner or later, landowners will die and their descendents will want to move somewhere else. The government, on the other hand, can afford to wait for years, decades, even centuries.
- barney54 11y agoThat is the story of Shenandoah National Park. It was created through eminent domain in the 1920s and 1930s and poor people were evicted off their land: http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/eminentdomain-origin-shenandoah-national-park/ http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/eminentdomain-origin-... http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/05/27/735042/-These-Hills-Were-Once-Home-A-Shenandoah-National-Park-Photo-Diary http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/05/27/735042/-These-Hills...