4 ms·

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.

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.