4 ms·

$15 million....what's that, an olive in the salad of US military? Have USA buy it...

adventured 7y ago
Could easily do it financially, the problem is you have to get the attention of someone in government that matters and prompt them to go to bat to convince numerous other people of the need to spend the money. Stray spending like that only happens as a pet cause that someone with influence champions, in doing so they burn a political marker (diverts funds from someone else's pet cause). Alternatively you have to get someone to put it into a future budget for one of the land management services, which can take years depending. Might be far easier to get a rich person to fork over the $15m and then hand it over to the forest service, like so: "The league plans to transfer the land to the US Forest Service in the next decade, which will make it part of the Giant Sequoia National Monument."
- beamatronic 7y ago
  Where’s a Gates or a Zuckerberg when you need them?
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    Why does the world's wealthiest country have to rely on the largesse of a few wealthy individuals to protect its natural and cultural heritage? I think the Parks Department can handle this one.
    - oh_sigh 7y ago
      There are already large Sequoia groves under the protection of the parks and other departments.
      - pvaldes 7y ago
        ...And each one that remains counts in our survival at middle term. Should be easier and less expensive to protect than an equivalent area in Amazonian rainforest.
        oh_sigh 7y ago
        How many sequoias should the parks department own? All of them?
        pvaldes 7y ago
        1000 year's old sequoias? as many as they can.
        wbronitsky 7y ago
        Yes, all of them should be protected by the US government so they cannot simply be sold to the highest bidder. Once these ancient trees are gone, they will never come back. The Parks Service seems to be able to keep these alive and in good shape for the benefit of all
    - malandrew 7y ago
      Who do you think is responsible for funding most of the Parks Department (and the rest of government)? It’s always going to be these people that that created the most wealth that are paying. It’s much better to have them pay for it directly than to have the government tax them and have the government pay. The former eliminates all the waste involved with paying bureaucrats to take the money as taxes and more bureaucrats to spend the money that was taken. I would be surprised if the government would have to tax at least $16 million to be able to spend $15 million but this grove of redwoods.
      - rbg246 7y ago
        This sounds a lot like feudalism! The Lord having a duty to his peasants to protect parts of the land and pay for its upkeep.
      - AlexandrB 7y ago
        > The former eliminates all the waste involved with paying bureaucrats to take the money as taxes and more bureaucrats to spend the money that was taken. Correct, the former eliminates all the waste involved in a functioning democracy.
      - beamatronic 7y ago
        You may be on to something. Like a casual carbon tax credit. Buy forested land in lieu of tax payments.
    - lacker 7y ago
      I think in practice both the government and private interests will end up paying for this. I predict they will successfully raise the $15m to buy the land, and transfer it to the park system. But then the park system will end up paying for maintenance forever. It seems like a pretty reasonable balance, to me. The problem with expecting the park service to acquire all land that’s good for parks is that in the Sierras there really is a huge amount of land that would be amazing for parks. California has more nice parkland than anywhere else I’m aware of, and the government already struggles at times to maintain it all, so I wouldn’t expect them to necessarily be aggressively expanding.
    - guerrilla 7y ago
      because it's an oligarchy.
enjoyyourlife 7y ago
Remember that they would have to maintain it...
- vatys 7y ago
  Left entirely alone, I think the trees maintain themselves rather well
  - masonic 7y ago
    No, they would have to be protected from poaching.
    - jcims 7y ago
      And cleared a bit to reduce fuel loading in case of fire.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  Yes, we call them... national parks.
ThemalSpan 7y ago
While I wouldn't have asked for hacker news comments to turn into this genre: this is an underrated comment.
- somebadguy 7y ago
  Please stop this 'underrated comment' millennial bullshit. This isn't YouTube or reddit

Could easily do it financially, the problem is you have to get the attention of someone in government that matters and prompt them to go to bat to convince numerous other people of the need to spend the money. Stray spending like that only happens as a pet cause that someone with influence champions, in doing so they burn a political marker (diverts funds from someone else's pet cause). Alternatively you have to get someone to put it into a future budget for one of the land management services, which can take years depending. Might be far easier to get a rich person to fork over the $15m and then hand it over to the forest service, like so: "The league plans to transfer the land to the US Forest Service in the next decade, which will make it part of the Giant Sequoia National Monument."

beamatronic 7y ago
Where’s a Gates or a Zuckerberg when you need them?
- arcticbull 7y ago
  Why does the world's wealthiest country have to rely on the largesse of a few wealthy individuals to protect its natural and cultural heritage? I think the Parks Department can handle this one.
  - oh_sigh 7y ago
    There are already large Sequoia groves under the protection of the parks and other departments.
    - pvaldes 7y ago
      ...And each one that remains counts in our survival at middle term. Should be easier and less expensive to protect than an equivalent area in Amazonian rainforest.
      - oh_sigh 7y ago
        How many sequoias should the parks department own? All of them?
        pvaldes 7y ago
        1000 year's old sequoias? as many as they can.
        wbronitsky 7y ago
        Yes, all of them should be protected by the US government so they cannot simply be sold to the highest bidder. Once these ancient trees are gone, they will never come back. The Parks Service seems to be able to keep these alive and in good shape for the benefit of all
  - malandrew 7y ago
    Who do you think is responsible for funding most of the Parks Department (and the rest of government)? It’s always going to be these people that that created the most wealth that are paying. It’s much better to have them pay for it directly than to have the government tax them and have the government pay. The former eliminates all the waste involved with paying bureaucrats to take the money as taxes and more bureaucrats to spend the money that was taken. I would be surprised if the government would have to tax at least $16 million to be able to spend $15 million but this grove of redwoods.
    - rbg246 7y ago
      This sounds a lot like feudalism! The Lord having a duty to his peasants to protect parts of the land and pay for its upkeep.
    - AlexandrB 7y ago
      > The former eliminates all the waste involved with paying bureaucrats to take the money as taxes and more bureaucrats to spend the money that was taken. Correct, the former eliminates all the waste involved in a functioning democracy.
    - beamatronic 7y ago
      You may be on to something. Like a casual carbon tax credit. Buy forested land in lieu of tax payments.
  - lacker 7y ago
    I think in practice both the government and private interests will end up paying for this. I predict they will successfully raise the $15m to buy the land, and transfer it to the park system. But then the park system will end up paying for maintenance forever. It seems like a pretty reasonable balance, to me. The problem with expecting the park service to acquire all land that’s good for parks is that in the Sierras there really is a huge amount of land that would be amazing for parks. California has more nice parkland than anywhere else I’m aware of, and the government already struggles at times to maintain it all, so I wouldn’t expect them to necessarily be aggressively expanding.
  - guerrilla 7y ago
    because it's an oligarchy.

enjoyyourlife 7y ago

Remember that they would have to maintain it...

vatys 7y ago
Left entirely alone, I think the trees maintain themselves rather well
- masonic 7y ago
  No, they would have to be protected from poaching.
  - jcims 7y ago
    And cleared a bit to reduce fuel loading in case of fire.
arcticbull 7y ago
Yes, we call them... national parks.

ThemalSpan 7y ago

While I wouldn't have asked for hacker news comments to turn into this genre: this is an underrated comment.

somebadguy 7y ago
Please stop this 'underrated comment' millennial bullshit. This isn't YouTube or reddit