Public lands are supposed to be for the public. Yet an Interior Department audit found that many so-called public lands are effectively monopolized by private clubs, according to the Washington Post.
The National Park Service has for decades allowed members-only beach, yacht and sports clubs -- including New York City's largest beach resort -- to "monopolize" public lands that by law should be open to all, an Interior Department audit shows.This finding should not be particularly surprising. "Public" lands are political lands. Management and access rules are ultimately driven by political considerations, and this gives concentrated interest groups and well-heeled organizations a leg up. This means resource using groups have disproportionate influence on management of federal lands used for resource extraction, and environmentalist organizations and private clubs have a disproportionate influence on management of the National Parks.The audit also found that the Park Service did not consider "environmental consequences" for 18 of 20 sites included in the survey.
The clubs "have enjoyed exclusive rights to public lands through restrictive and costly memberships that deny the general public the same benefits," the report says. "In some instances, the National Park Service has authorized this exclusivity for 30 or more years."
More broadly, the National Park system subsidizes recreation for well-off Americans. Most visitors to national parks are upper- or middle-class, and their recreation is subsidized by general tax revenues. (I plead guilty as a subsidy-sucker here, as I am a frequent visitor to National Parks.) Those with more limited economic means are more likely to visit state and local parks than those run by the NPS -- particularly the jewels of the system, such as Yellowstone, to which most Americans must travel a substantial distance to visit. These are "public" lands that are not enjoyed by much of the public.
Related Posts (on one page):
- National Park Fees to Increase:
- Private Groups "Monopolizing" Public Lands:
All in all, our national treasures, including citadels of higher education, effectively exclude our minorities who, nonetheless, participate in paying the bills. It's high time to sell them all off to folks like Ted Turner or even Bob Jones, who would no doubt practice better husbandry at no cost to our minorities, who could then use their share of the loot to put food on their kids' table.
- It may well be true that the demographics of the national parks skew towards the middle and upper class (though since the "middle class" constitutes around half the population of the US, I'm not sure that the claim that "most visitors" are upper or middle class is very meaningful.) but it's not clear that this is a matter of accessibility rather than preference. Camping and backpacking are one of the cheapest ways to vacation which is part of why they're so popular with college students. You can easily spend a week backpacking with no cost other than your food and the gas you spent to get there.
- The national park service isn't the only federal agency running outdoors areas. Indeed, some of the nicest areas are in national forests, not parks.
- It's obviously true that the "crown jewel" national parks are going to be more expensive for some to get to than others. However, there are quite nice national parks/forests all over the US. To take one (probably not exactly representative) example, all of California (pop 36 MM) is within easy driving distance of one or another amazing national parks/forests: Shasta/Trinity in the North, Yosemite in the Bay Area, and Joshua Tree in the South.
I don't think this is more than tangentially relevant to the issue the rest of the post raises, but I'm also not sure it's true or problematic.
First, it ignores entrance-fee revenue. Although it is true that entrance fees only cover about 10% of the expenses of national parks, see GAO, National Park Service: Major Funding Trends App. II, at 55, those fees come disproportionately from the big-name parks that people tend to come visit from far away. See Yosemite Ass'n Press Release (Dec. 5, 1998) (citing $5,473,000 operating budget and $22,421,000 fee revenue for Yellowstone NP in FY 1998; I couldn't find newer figures in a quick Google). The biggest subsidies thus appear to go to parks whose draw is more local—and, I would guess, less wealthy.
Second, the national parks are hardly the preserve of a wealthy few. You are probably correct that most of the very poor lack the means to get to them and to take the time to enjoy them, but I suspect that NPS visitors pretty well cover the rest of the income spectrum—do you have data to the contrary? I would be surprised if NPS visitors don't include significant numbers of people from all income levels that earn enough to pay income tax—and at that point, the NP system can hardly be characterized as a subsidy to wealthy vacationers. (It's worth noting, by the way, that the most visited national park—by a factor of 2—is Great Smoky Mountains NP in NC/TN, not one of the big western ones. In my experience, visitors to that park are mostly daytrippers—from a not-particularly-wealthy part of the country—who appear to cover a variety of income levels.)
Third, I would argue that recreation is not the sole or even the primary purpose of the National Park system. Protecting the environment and preserving our natural treasures for future generations benefits us all, whether or not we have the means or desire to visit. There are large protected areas that are de facto—and in some cases, I think, de jure—inaccessible to all, and I would argue that this is a good thing, not a waste of recreational dollars.
This may well be true, but it furthers Adler's point. I think you will find that, even above park visits, the value placed on maintaining the environment for future generations is very progressively valued, i.e., the rich place much greater importance on this goal than the poor.
None of this demeans the national park system, but it is to be kept in mind as another example of the government redistributing income in a way that benefits the better off, not the poor of society.
As for selling the public lands, that is the most bone-headed idea of all. Once they are sold, they will be developed and my kids will never get to see them again except in pictures. We have toured a bunch of parks in the Southwest and did it on a pauper's budget. Ted Turner or Bill Gates or Warren Buffet (who is presently fighting tribes over dams and fishing rights) are not friends of the common American.
"
Uh...any possibility that there is a direct correlation? i.e. thinking ahead and planning are traits which tend to make people more economically successful.
"...and environmentalist organizations and private clubs have a disproportionate influence on management of the National Parks."
I's like to see the facts on how many "Special Use Permits" for private clubs actually exist. As to "environmentalist organizations" having large influence on National Park management -- I say that's good and they probably ought to have more.
But I do know that in some national forests there are private cabins. The lease terms are trivial, there are no taxes, and the property can be inherited. For all practical purposes the land has been given away.
I believe all these were established decades ago. But, as with any free goodies, you can bet it is considered a 'right' by those who benefit.
You know why that is, Jimbino? Because the only people in the USA who are interested in something other than crack, malt liquor, cervesa and cheap drugs are lily white.
1) A car and/or car rental
2) Airfare to get to the national park
3) Vacation time
1) Poor people are less likely to have cars, and if they do are less likely to be able to afford to rent cars on top of that.
2) Unless you live within driving distance, you need to fly, which is nontrivially expensive for the poor.
3) Most poor people are paid hourly, which means no paid vacations. Thus time spent vacationing is money out of pocket, and they have little enough of that.
Your dig at the planning abilities of the poor, while it may be true, is irrelevant here.
Darn right. Anyone who is white should be ashamed of themselves.
Yep. Right in the heart of lily white Philly, minorities are being prohibited from gawking at the Liberty-for-whitey Bell.
I'm not sure how the asians that made up about 25% of the people I saw at the Grand Canyon last year snuck past the guards, but I'll look into it.
I hope everyone knows how when Pres. Eisenhower died, they tried to evict Mimi and take the farm... (they got it eventually, but were forced to bide their time till she died)
Just wondering. (If you were attempting to be sarcastic or ironic, your post didn't come across that way, at least to me.)
I just am recalling being stuck between 3 tour buses of Japanese tourists at Canyon de Chelly. That made for interesting overlook sequences.
I am quite maddened that the government seems so willing to offer up public land for restricted private use for so little money. However, any discussion here arguing that the current system of public national parks, such as Yellowstone, being unfair because they use public funds but only "rich and white" Americans seems to me to be unreasonable.
The public parks and forests are there for use to enjoy into the future. I believe it was right for the government to reserve a large chunk of land from development, and to manage it according to that purpose (which I would argue also includes managing the timber to prevent catastrophic forest fires, but that's another discussion). Opening that land up to the public is natural, but saying it's unfair for low income people because of the costs of getting there isn't a reasonable argument.
Think about this: most of the tax dollars supporting those parks comes from the top 10% of wage earners anyway. If you only see it once in your life, or only get to one or two federal parks in your life, while the rich and well off get to do so many times in their life, doesn't that make some sense?
Anecdotally: I've been to Yellowstone twice in my life. Once with my Mother and sister when I was going to college (because it was on the way) and once recently so I could share that treasure with my own kids. In both cases I could describe my family as middle class (definitely not upper-middle). In both cases we drove, and in both cases we stayed in lodging outside the park to save money. In both cases, visiting the park was only one stop on a larger trip, in which the main point of the trip was something other than visiting the park itself.
I've never visited the Great Smokey Mountains national park. Nor do I think I ever will. I've seen pictures of it, though, and am happy that some of my tax dollars are going into protecting such a beautiful place.
All this to say, I think visiting public monuments of beauty is all in how you prioritize your life. Students cross the country on a shoestring budget, not because they feel like they have the money to blow, but because they prioritize the journey as more important than investing in their life at the place they started from.
Almost all the people I know who are poor who have the ability to visit some very beautiful public lands right outside the city, but never do (excepting those who's confinement is due to physical disability). This isn't because of their economic state, but their priorities.
I think that Mr. Anonymous above, had he any sense of dignity, was trying to say something like this. Although I know so many black, Hispanic and Asian people who have very good priorities (or at least those that don't include drugs) that the statements he makes offend me to no end.
1. Choice of mate
2. Rearing of children
3. Education
4. Healthcare
5. Recreation
6. Property
Who in his right mind wouldn't rather have Ted Turner or Warren Buffet manage them than the Federal Government, which can't teach kids math, deliver the mail or even fight wars?
2. Would anyone really argue that just because minorities choose not to avail themselves of these educational and recreational opportunities that taxpayers shouldn't subsidize them?
3. The National Parks are not primarily recreational areas anyway, and they should not be judged by how many or which people visit them each year. They are there to preserve unique, irreplaceable wilderness for the wildlife and for future generations.
This is an interesting argument: do you mean to suggest that furthering goals that rich people would vote for, when they think they are voting altruistically, is equivalent to subsidizing their activities? That strikes me as a bit of a leap.
On the merits, I also think you're probably wrong--that is, I am skeptical that environmental goals are more important to wealthier people.
Nor should the gummint subsidize education or recreation.
How would you feel if the gummint taxed us all to subsidize rap schools, chitlins and menudo? Or booze? Or churches? Would you be happy with the argument that it's OK and non-discriminatory since anyone could partake?
And who do you think is maintaining the American Bison? Not the gummint, but Ted Turner!
Do you think the attractions of Disney World and MGM, not to mention Las Vegas, would attract millions of folks of all races, colors and nationalities if they were run by the gummint? Liberals just don't quite get the idea that the gummint can't run anything well, including a war, and certainly not those most important things, like your sex life or internet life! Are you happy with the post office?
"Who in his right mind wouldn't rather have Ted Turner or Warren Buffet manage them than the Federal Government, which can't teach kids math, deliver the mail or even fight wars?"
I pray that was tongue in cheek. Isn't the government's impact on the way math is taught only indirect? And the federal government can't deliver the mail? Are you serious? USPS is arguably the most efficient national postal system in the world.
In the first place something like 70% of the land in the US is owned by the Federal gov't. Nobody wants it! You want to buy land in Calif? You can do so from the Feds for less than $1000/acre. The fact that it is 50 miles+ from any road,town,or utilities and the fact that it is not productive for farming,ranching ,or industry,makes it pretty much useless.But the Feds own it all,and will sell it pretty cheap(fair market value!). But for the most part nobody wants it.
Once again ,if you want to lease ground from the BLM or NPS, they will do it really cheap,to any one that wants to bother.It has nothing to do with "monopolizing" or "privilege". It has to do with the fact that they have lots of land that nobody wants,and when somebody does,for the most part,the money is then used to help defray costs of husbanding useless,non-profitable land.
This post sounds like someone is jealous of someone-else-that-they-don't-know,but-must-have-$$$(or something that you don't!)You want your own "club" or whatever on Federal land, then LEASE the dam* land from the feds and build your own! Anybody can do it.
As far as National Parks,anyone that wants to can go there. It also is cheap, something like $75/yr will buy you a pass that gets your whole vehicle onto every park,every day of the year. National forest entry is free.
As far as privately owned property within National Parks and National Forests, in probably 99.9% of those cases the land was privately owned before the land became a designated Park or Forest(as in the preceding paragraph someone bought or homesteaded Federal property before it changed designation,and it wasn't worth the bother or the cost to the Feds to change the status of the privately owned land,so it is still privately owned).
1. In the USA, many minorities own cars and some national parks such as Mount Rainier or Yosemite are fairly close to major cities.
2. My remark on planning was a response to a prior post.
What's wrong is that they have a sweet-heart deal to use public lands that no one else gets to use. We aren't talking about land "50 miles from the nearest road", land no one else wants anyway, but prime locations that they are getting to use for their own privileged few at our expense. It has nothing to do with whether or not minorities or anyone else visits some National Park or historical site or not.
I do know that in some national forests there are private cabins. The lease terms are trivial, there are no taxes, and the property can be inherited. For all practical purposes the land has been given away.
Out here in the West many acres in National Forest Lands are in fact privatley owned. Why? Because when the railroads were built in the 1800's they were given lands that resulted in the "checkerboard" pattern which you probably read about in your US History Classes in High School (if they taught "real" US History). Any number of these squares ended up in hands other than the railroads (that was the purpose), some of them have become recreational property. I only offer this as one possibility of how lands that appear to be NFS lands, are in fact owned by private individuals.. This does not speak to the original post which is a different matter entirely.
It seems to me that the acerage being discussed is
de minimus. Now it might be "prime" land, and if there is no other alternative for public use that's one thing. Otherwise, what's the big deal? So some people have "privilege". I know it isn't going to effect my life, and I very much doubt that some poor person is very much denied his "rights". More than likely, what is being talked about is a grandfathering of access. Again BIG DEAL. I really don't see an abuse here other than in the minds of the overwrought
May be "inholdings," some privately owned and built up, and Forest Service found it cheaper not to try to condemn and take them when the surrounding federal land was dedicated Forst land.
Depends. There's a lot of desert land west of here that indeed nobody would pay a dollar an acre for. Not fifty miles from noplace, a hundred miles from noplace, hot as hell, and if there is a water table, you're gonna have trouble finding a drill that long.
But my city (Tucson) is hedged by National Forest and Park lands on two sides, and has built right out to the boundaries. You could see that land, and land atop Mt. Lemmon, for fortunes. In fact the very wealthy have made it a point to buy land right on the edge.
One of the local rackets is land swaps. Most federal agencies can't just sell land, but they can swap it. So a developer with lots of political clout buys a bunch of desert, and swaps it for fewer but far more valuable acres. Or gets a legislator to order the agency to expand this or that unit in a way that ensures it has to buy the land the developer already owns (then the legislator gets to pose as the guy who expanded this or that park or protected this or that import land). The values are supposed to be identical, but with a little juggling of appraisers (whose work on desert land is largely guesswork) -- use a guy whose estimates are always low for the gov't land, and one whose estimates are always high for your land), it can come out very well.
A splendid mission! With a bit of luck, might even build a national practice around it. (Make sure to have some other fields to keep you going for some years until that comes thru).
I was amazed at Interior to find that Park Service even has some Clean Air Act powers. They can (in some way or manner, now I forget) shut down air emissions that are merely visible from a Park. There were rumors that in some areas they'd keep the cost of eminent domain down by claim to only take a "scenic easement." You get to keep the land -- you just can't build anything on it. (I have no idea of the veracity of that rumor).
DTH
GS-14 defending US Fish and Wildlife Service
While always looked upon Parks as overfunded, overpowerful
and overly snooty.
Good Lord, man, where do you live? Why do you think the USPS prohibits competition? And no, each public math teacher is an employee of the state. Thus the word "public."
The USPS prohibits competition. Has anyone told Fed Ex? And if what they're doing is illegal, can we punish them by making them take they're stupid whiteboard commercials off the air?
Wow, you're really out of the loop. The USPS prohibited private service for a long time. They finally legalized part of the market; FedEx now dominates because it's better than the USPS. Private letter-carrying service on non-urgent is still illegal; carrying on "urgent" letters has a price floor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USPS#Statutory_monopoly
The whiteboard commercials are for UPS, not FedEx. And I like them.
I am left scratching my head about the reference to Philadelphia, however. I live there and work in Center City. The population of Philadelphia is over 50% minority, and this fact is reflected in the typical mix of persons walking around downtown---right past the Liberty Bell and Independence Hall; admission is free.