Vote NO on Federal Park (Strong, Rome: houses, bankrupt, contractors)

[mensaguy]

I'm still trying to figure out what Central Maine Power has to do with the Federal Park Service or the National Forests.

[Maineac]

CMP has nothing to do with anything. My Grandfather told me about Flagstaff many years ago. Buildings are still visible in the depths (or shallows) of Flagstaff Lake. It was a land and water rights boondoggle grab by a corporation to the benefit of a very few, and their stockholders. Controlling water rights. Long, long time ago. We can reminisce about it, and how it so obviously relates to, say, carving a 500' wide private corridor dividing the State of Maine for power, pipeline and trucking from Canada to Canada, but that would way too ironic, wouldn't it? Which raises the question as to how a National Park or Forest a few miles north of the proposed scar might effect such "development" plans. Interesting juxtapositioning. Still, none of the questions posed have been answered with anything but political rhetoric. IF no National Park or Forest surrounding Baxter or next east of Baxter, then how does the region fare economically otherwise? IF National Park or Forest established, in an area that's nice, kinda remote, but ain't no Yosemite or Yellowstone, how does that play out economically? Kind of like the antithesis of the proposed Big A Dam project back in the '80's. GNP HAD to have it. HAD to build it. It would SAVE the paper industry and all the Millinocket and E.Mill jobs. Yet only two people would be running the dam after construction, much of the West Branch would disappear under the new impoundment, and today? Power would be generated and shipped out of State via the grid. Only the stockholders of successor corporations would benefit. I got no answers. If this were to become a National Park, what would be the benefit beyond preservation in perpetuity? Sounds nice, but so did the Big A project to some people, and history proves otherwise.

[Kracer]

Originally Posted by Gingrich

Elston, you got it exactly right here.

[]Problems facing natl parks.....[/
[Top Ten Issues Facing the National Parks -- National Geographic[/
[
]Well when national politics gets out of control, they shut down your natl parks for political advantage.
The federal government can no longer be trusted...at least not at this time. ]

Ready for a future liberal supreme court to ban firearms, hunting and trapping on federal land. then it turns out that property partially purchased with federal money is bound by federal rules even if some of the property is state property or otherwise classified as public access. Problem on AT trail in the NJ with hunting. The legal issue simmers and has been simmering untilat some point some activist get the cash to pursue a legal fight.[/SIZE]

What does Amstrerdam have to do with National parks?[
]Amsterdam, from the agenda 21 UN treaty, now confiscates broadheads from archers travelling thru to Africa to hunt. Animal rights activists rule the roost. Political agenda currently enbraces UN treaty and gloabl rules to supercede the US constitution. Maybe, maybe not, but global regs are being embraced by DOJ and current administration...who will own a large part of Maine. Federal regs on green house gases and woodstoves. What do the feds have on their agenda? you have to buy it to see what is in it! Worked so well before.

Like windmills in remote areas, natl parks will require much construction and lose the original character. [/SIZE]in enjoy the skeeters and black flies and easy access to unique vistas. Let's see....Yellowstone this year with magnificant views, Acadia or unending forest where we hopefully don't get lost and need to be rescued by Maine game warden service when we tried to find that waterfall. then again it is well documented that only very small sites are veer visited by tourists. Good luck with al that profiteering you hope for.

]Special accomodations that will be rarely used will be mandated by federal owners along with reams of other yet undiscovered regulations that defy logic and common sense

]National Parks | National Parks Traveler[/
"“Our national parks are important to Wyoming and to me personally. I want to see them preserved, but I also want people to be able to access and enjoy them," he said. "The trend has been to lessen public access and often the justification is that there isn’t enough money to keep things open. Yet, we’ve never been able to tell where all the money is really going. This review should give us a good idea."

"Last fall, Sen. Coburn issued a report, Parked! How Congress' Misplaced Priorities Are Trashing Our National Treasures, that blamed both the Park Service and Congress for the state of the National Park System. In that report he described an overly bureaucratic National Park Service as a cumbersome agency that spends more on administration and overhead than on the parks themselves"

[Maineac]

Originally Posted by Kracer

[]Problems facing natl parks.....[/
[Top Ten Issues Facing the National Parks -- National Geographic[/
[
]Well when national politics gets out of control, they shut down your natl parks for political advantage.
The federal government can no longer be trusted...at least not at this time. ]

Ready for a future liberal supreme court to ban firearms, hunting and trapping on federal land. then it turns out that property partially purchased with federal money is bound by federal rules even if some of the property is state property or otherwise classified as public access. Problem on AT trail in the NJ with hunting. The legal issue simmers and has been simmering untilat some point some activist get the cash to pursue a legal fight.[/SIZE]

What does Amstrerdam have to do with National parks?[
]Amsterdam, from the agenda 21 UN treaty, now confiscates broadheads from archers travelling thru to Africa to hunt. Animal rights activists rule the roost. Political agenda currently enbraces UN treaty and gloabl rules to supercede the US constitution. Maybe, maybe not, but global regs are being embraced by DOJ and current administration...who will own a large part of Maine. Federal regs on green house gases and woodstoves. What do the feds have on their agenda? you have to buy it to see what is in it! Worked so well before.

Like windmills in remote areas, natl parks will require much construction and lose the original character. [/SIZE]in enjoy the skeeters and black flies and easy access to unique vistas. Let's see....Yellowstone this year with magnificant views, Acadia or unending forest where we hopefully don't get lost and need to be rescued by Maine game warden service when we tried to find that waterfall. then again it is well documented that only very small sites are veer visited by tourists. Good luck with al that profiteering you hope for.

]Special accomodations that will be rarely used will be mandated by federal owners along with reams of other yet undiscovered regulations that defy logic and common sense

]National Parks | National Parks Traveler[/
"“Our national parks are important to Wyoming and to me personally. I want to see them preserved, but I also want people to be able to access and enjoy them," he said. "The trend has been to lessen public access and often the justification is that there isn’t enough money to keep things open. Yet, we’ve never been able to tell where all the money is really going. This review should give us a good idea."

"Last fall, Sen. Coburn issued a report, Parked! How Congress' Misplaced Priorities Are Trashing Our National Treasures, that blamed both the Park Service and Congress for the state of the National Park System. In that report he described an overly bureaucratic National Park Service as a cumbersome agency that spends more on administration and overhead than on the parks themselves"

Well, that discussion just drove right off the cliff. First, I don't think anyone disagrees that Federal employ carries way too many perks and the Agencies are pretty much taking everything they can from the taxpayer. I spent a couple years with the Feds under President Bush. It's a racket. Not part of the issue here. A "future liberal Supreme Court" banning firearms, hunting and trapping on Federal land? Other than in National Forests, I think it's already illegal. I've never felt the need to take my .357 Python to Acadia with me, but what's that got to do with the price of rice in China? Agenda 21? Debunked repeatedly and thoroughly as a "no teeth" 20+ year old guidance document attempting to promote sustainable development worldwide. Debunked for everyone but the most ardent conspiracy theorist, I should say. Amsterdam? Couldn't find a thing tying that one to Agenda 21, but I suspect some conspiracy theorist has tied them together somehow. Broadheads are outlawed by the Dutch, as are most weapons. Just like if you were going through the U.S. with a rocket launcher on your way to Nicaragua, or anything else illegal in the U.S. for that matter. Greenhouse gases and woodstoves? The push is for manufacturing more efficiently burning devices, not taking away everyone's woodstove. I just bought a new Ashley, and have an 1880's Clarion, so no, they're not "outlawed." The Ashley had to be modified to sell it, and I "unmodified" it for my purposes. This is all grasping at political straws. Now back to our regularly scheduled question: Other than politically motivated arguments premised on debunked conspiracy theory and unrelated arguments, what are the pros and cons of the National Park premise for the people of the State of Maine?

[Maineac]

I would add that complete and utter loss of control of a region of Maine in lieu of Federal control, and the attendant problems that might arise from that, are legitimate factors. But the conspiracy rants are a turnoff to legitimate discourse on the subject, and, in fact, have completely the opposite of the intended effect.

[camanchaca]

Originally Posted by Northern Maine Land Man

I can't believe this person has had much exposure to the federal government if it seems to be "well run". They spent over a million dollars developing a ball point pen that would work in zero gravity. The Russians simply used an off the shelf mechanical pencil.

The cool thing about mechanical pencils in space is the graphite breaks off and floats all around and is, technically speaking, "conductive" and "combustible", which are excellent things to have in space, it turns out. (also the space pen wasn't developed by nasa snopes.com: NASA Space Pen)

[camanchaca]

Originally Posted by Maineac

First, I don't think anyone disagrees that Federal employ carries way too many perks

I was a federal employee for a number of years, and now work in the private sector, and the only "perk" I miss is the very-low-fee well-managed 401k-like retirement program (as opposed to the regular-fee 401k retirement programs in my latter jobs that I've had to do all the legwork on myself).

[maineguy8888]

Originally Posted by IHeartMaine

You seem to really hate it there. Why don't you move?

That's not what she said at all. And do YOU live in the area that would be impacted by this park?
Here's the deal: WE ALREADY HAVE A NICE, BIG PARK THERE.......one that is ten times better than anything that Roxie wants to do.
So obviously the people who are behind this are really just into power grabs. The are just Statists.

[Northern Maine Land Man]

I didn't say that NASA developed that pen I said that it was paid for by the government or our taxpayers.

[camanchaca]

"They" was a pretty clear reference to "the federal government" in that quote, dude, and from the snopes link:

"Fisher spent over one million dollars in trying to perfect the ball point pen before he made his first successful pressurized pens in 1965. Samples were immediately sent to Dr. Robert Gilruth, Manager of the Houston Space Center, where they were thoroughly tested and approved for use in Space in September 1965. In December 1967 he sold 400 Fisher Space Pens to NASA for $2.95 each."

which is about $1200 in 1967, and converts to roughly $22-$25 a pop in today's money, which while it isn't exactly the Office Depot "ten cents per when you buy a barrel worth" is pretty cheap compared to, for example, the cost of putting each gram in orbit.