My question is if in order to have a national park you must acquire 90 percent of the private lands and if almost two-thirds of the private lands are owned by one corporation, could not that corporation by withholding its consent to sell, keeping in mind there is no eminent domain authority here, by refusing the consent to sell would they not then have a veto over the whole National Park System designation?
Questioning the implications of private land ownership on national park designations.
Share
More from John Johnston
It is my understanding of S. 1935 that it will be practically impossible for Members to make an effort, either directly or indirectly, to assist worthwhile causes--that is, tax-exempt, charitable entities.
Under the Senator's amendment, would he not agree with me that rather than to have three interpretative rulings on--I forget what it was the Senator said; three rulings for events? Would you really have to have an interpretative ruling on…
The actual wording is not that the trip is not substantially recreational, but that the activities as part of the trip are not substantially recreational, which I think is a significant difference because you can have a serious trip that…
Is it not a fact that the Levin-Wellstone amendment allows the same thing, only while ours would be limited to $75, yours is unlimited, provided it is motivated by personal friendship, to be decided by the Member?
Other voices in this conversation
