Ever since the phrase "economic stimulus" was launched last year, there seems to have been more and more clamoring for these kinds of bailouts, or incentives, or infusions of capital, or whatever you want to call them.
Conservation groups haven't been silent in this arena, either.
Not long after Traveler reported back in November that various "green" groups had collaborated on a wish list for the environment, one that had plenty of suggestions involving the national parks, we began to hear that there was work under way to outline an economic stimulus package that would benefit the environment, including the national parks.
Later this week -- Wednesday to be specific -- the groups will hold a news conference to explain what they see as "an opportunity to invest in ready-to-go, job-creating projects that would restore America’s national parks, forests, wildlife refuges, and fragile ecosystems as part of the nation’s economic recovery, as was done in the 1930s."
As an example, the National Parks Conservation Association notes that at Great Smoky Mountains National Park an investment of $4.2 million could bring all 94 of the park's restrooms into ADA compliance. At Valley Forge National Historical Park an investment of $927,615 would cover repairs and restoration of Stirling's Quarters, which was the headquarters of Maj. Gen. Lord Stirling and Major James Monroe. At Grand Canyon National Park a $15 million investment would provide badly needed employee housing in the form of eight, eight-plex multiple family housing units in an area now occupied by 10 trailers.
These are not bad things. But the NPCA's 12-page document highlighting the needs of the National Park System generates just a dollop of uneasiness.
One concern is the need to wrap the parks up as so many economic engines, that the reason they deserve an economic stimulus in part is to help kick-start pockets of the economy around the country. Indeed, in the NPCA's document subtitle after subtitle addressing proposed infusions is followed first by the words, "to create jobs," and then by the specific need, whether that be repairing a road or providing an ADA ramp to a restroom. That's all fine and good, but what happens when the economy turns around but national park funding does not? Then how might groups lobby for the parks' needs?
But then, the folks at NPCA well know that they have to sell this package to the incoming Obama administration and that in the economy's current state, well, jobs sell.
The second concern deserves to be delivered on a silver platter not just to the incoming administration but to every member of Congress: The National Park System is a key part of our national heritage, and it shouldn't have been allowed to tarnish so. Indeed, the NPCA drives that message home in its report:
These places tell the American story -- and our personal stories. These are the places where we forge family memories and in doing so, bond with our nation as a community.
Most importantly, national parks are our legacy to our children and grandchildren; protecting the national parks means that we are protecting our legacy for the future.
The National Park System is a poster child for years of insufficient investment in our nation's most significant assets.
For years, America's national parks have sustained chronic shortfalls in critical federal funding needed to adequately staff and maintain visitor centers, campgrounds, and museums, and keep parks safe and accessible for all visitors. National parks on average received only two-thirds of the needed federal funding annually -- a system-wide shortfall of $750 million every year.
If the green groups can garner an economic stimulus package for the parks, good for them. But let's not buttress that package on the notion that we should invest in the parks primarily for the economy's sake. True, the parks are indeed powerful economic engines. If you doubt that, just ask any chamber of commerce in a gateway town what would happen if their park went poof! the next day.
But national parks shouldn't need to be portrayed as economic saviors to gain our country's necessary and prudent investment. They should be properly kept up because they are central to our nation's heritage.
Now, if an economic package is approved for the parks, let's be careful with it. Let's focus on repairs and restorations and curatorial needs and not go on a spending spree of new facilities and roads.
And, if Congress deems such investment worthy, let's hope it also realizes the pitfalls of neglect and gets serious about properly funding -- not just adding to, but actually funding -- the National Park Service and seeing that our tax dollars are wisely spent. Let's hope that we one day soon no longer need to talk about the Park Service's staggering backlog or mention "Centennial Challenges" with hopes it will buy some polish for the system in time for the agency's centennial in 2016.
Rather, let's properly invest in the parks just because it's the right thing to do.
Support Essential Coverage of Essential Places
Comments
And how many of us spell our country's name "Amerika"?
I believe it was originally inscripted as Amerikkka in accordance with the ultra-conservative movement in the Deep South......
Take from one and give to another isn't your precious democracy, whatever the hell that is, it's RobinHoodism at its basest level, aka. Social communism.
Maybe one should aspire to dwell at the economic levels at which Pell recipients dwell prior to ANY criticism of the system. Or maybe you care to "broad brush" that notion along with the equity of the GI Bill that placed so many returning servicemen and women through your glorious and elitist collegiate ranks, and the first time home-buyers assistance programs that placed some of your "unequals" into private housing. And our own Gen./Pres. Eisenhower, who last I heard wasn't ever mentioned as our version of Lil' Adolf, designed and initiated construction on quite the American Autobahn, to which we'll be FOREVER paying to reconstruct and expand as some USDOT idiot sees fit. It is NOT government that is inherently bad.......it's the corrupt American bi-partisan and special interest laden system that needs to be gutted flushed and redesigned. Since we, as human beings, whatever THAT connotes, continue daily to exhibit our inability to act responsibly and respectfully in the basest efforts of day-to-day living, we leave little option but to be forcibly led under some manner of regulatory body. Let's at the very least construct a system by which the equity places ALL on the same level playing field and eliminate the elitist rule of the current system.
And let's not be too exacting with our definitions. While investing can indeed, in part, meet the criterion of "save" or "defer", it just as well can be defined as “improvement” or caching for use at a later time, not simply deferring / preserving for time immortal, and should not in the least be inferred as solely within the limited scope of the term as it pertains to conservationist overtones. Restoration is investment, as is the process of modernization to current standards / codes to enable long-term stabilization.
But by all means, as I've stated in no uncertain terms in previous discussions, do NOTHING on the "wish list" of wants until the current maintenance backlog needs and all their related issues have been successfully eradicated from the docket.
I guess the operative inference was in pointing to "our" definitions. For simplicity sake we often refer to things in "our" terms, but clarity and understanding could be obtained by utilizing more exacting terms, which neither include double entendre nor doublespeak. Therein lies a major issue with "our" version of the English language.......too many definitions for the same terms, many of which can be used to bolster opposing viewpoints to the general confusion of the issue at hand.
While General George and many of his peers so frequently quoted within the posts to this site are no specific heroes of mine, it could also, and just as accurately be stated that many other of that group (the Founders) and of philosophers (dating to Plato) would disagree about the intent and responsibilities of government, dating back to the earliest influences of political structures founded by most "Western" societies. All of those positions on BOTH ends of the spectrum were derived from various periods in time quite unlike the current circumstance in which we exist. Previous civilizations dealt with a multitude of issues no longer relevant to our "modern" society, and around such issues opinions were formulated and expressed. Franklin, for one, expressed his fears that the governmental structure being established in the mid-to-late 18th century would only be able to be sustained by a virtuous society; that very societal composition which he also stated could not sustain itself given the nature of mankind, whom he observed to be corrupt by nature, as has been demonstrated across time and geography and has found a "universal truth"; Jefferson (and others) views on the slavery issue are evidence of outmoded thought processes. So I don't think Ben would qualify as one of your stronger supporters of our current "democracy", progressive or otherwise. And for clarity sake, Ben favored a Republic modeled after the Roman pre-Caesar era council. At least, that's what he wrote in his papers. Finally, as we stand and debate the merits of our current political cesspool, in the larger picture isn't a society, ANY society, sans governmental or some other method of directional structure akin to anarchy?
In closing, a much belated Happy Holidays to you all. At least I sincerely hope they were for you. Now, back to the bloodbath!
"Fortunately the end is near as the federal government is totally bankrupt and its creditors are about to stop lending it any more money by refusing to buy treasury debt which has been the fuel of the current reckless borrowing and spending spree. The Feds will try to print their way out of the predicament but that will fail miserably and the final day of reckoning will be upon it. By the way, that day is not too far in the future.
President Obama is about to preside over the end of an exhausted and depleted empire. It is time for those of us who love the parks to honestly look at other avenues of administration for the national park system. It would be wise to have that discussion now before its present owners auction them off in a fire sale the likes of which the world has never known."
You may be surprised to learn that many of those you label as "socialists" agree with some of the basic points you make, particularly in re: to our economy and the difficult times ahead. However, you should acknowledge that our situation was caused, in part, to a lack of adequate controls on the market and excessive consumerism. Indeed, the greatest economic malpractice and runaway deficit spending occurred during Republican administrations. It was Bush/Cheney who urged Americans to go out and shop rather than make personal sacrifices following 9/11. Insofar as national parks are concerned, they are a commonly shared heritage of all Americans and should be managed as such. I will likely never visit most of the parks that my taxes help to support, but they are nonetheless my heritage and deserve my support. Taxes are essential if our nation is to function. We have every right to demand that our tax dollars be used wisely and efficiently and that they be fairly levied. However, with all its faults, our government and our nation needs and deserves a share of the money we gain, in part, due to the fact that we are Americans.