Posted on 08/08/2005 1:56:03 PM PDT by Sweetjustusnow
Our so called Conservative majority in Congress passed by unanimous vote the National Heritage Area's Bill (See Senate Bill 243) along with (Senate Bill 54)on July 26, 2005.
Oh! And I heard a rumor the other day that the people of Jarbidge, NV have had to reclaim their road recently... AGAIN!!! Is that true, Jeff?
It's not a senior moment. :)
Brother... Just wait till you get your ephifany and find out the truth of your misguided situation... Brother!!!
Who cares what California thinks. You don't even have any National Heritage Areas.
Another Californian who thinks they know what they are talking about.
There's the rub, Brother Reverend! Discuss with us now, how they are induced to "WANT" to sell to "us!" It's very subtle, strong and vile in far too many cases. If you'll honestly look into it, you'll discover it! It sucks canal water!!!
I am really concerned that people with good intentions are being used by our federal government to think up good uses for other peoples property.
The UN and agenda 21 are slowly implementing policy using willing people to gradually erode our national sovergnity.
Groups of people are being organized with the lure of government money to pay for those "studies" and administer land use proposals that are then in turn presented to planning and zoning committees, parks and recreation boards etc.
I am greatly concerned that other people are scheming ways to turn private property into public areas. Then after public control comes user fees, a little sales tax support and so on. And what percentage of our land should be set aside? How many historical sites can be feasable protected from progress and how do we classify their significance in comparison to private enterprise and private development?
I am wary of other people scheming what they think is best for my property and keeping me out of the loop until a public meeting has been called. The schemers have already thought out the details and come prepared with a great sales presentation, where the land owner has been caught unaware and totally unprepared for the undermining of his property rights. How much land has been stolen because of schemes hatched behind closed doors?
I am sure your intentions are noble. In some cases probably sensible and necessary. But beware of the intentions of others who enable these things to happen.
This heritage concept is a pretty thinly veiled socialist land grab in my opinion.
Then git back to us and tell us how we should feel about what the NPS did to all those citizen/property owners and small businessmen of the Cayahoga Valley in northern OH!!!
Look you can think whatever you want. I am not telling you how to live in California. If you don't want a Heritage area there, then by all means don't have one. Ours has tremendous public support, the biggest complaint was that it was not big enough.
Property owners here are not afraid of the NPS or the Heritage Area. They can read and know what the law says. Heck there are more lawyers here per capita than in any other state.
You fight for what you want to in California but don't get yer panties in a bunch when we fight for what we want back east. Like I told the other California guy, I don't know what his exact situation is. Don't pretend to know what ours is.
Some people have discovered that adding the words “nationally significant” to their area or region can result in millions of federal dollars funneled through National Heritage Areas (NHAs). What was once a regional or local project with community involvement can be partly underwritten by the government and overseen by the Nation Park Service.
NHAs raise legitimate questions about the role of the federal government. To begin with, the potential scope of heritage areas is enormous. Forty-five million Americans now live within the 27 existing NHAs. Although the National Park Service does not control what happens in these areas—supposedly, decisions are made by “management entities” composed of local groups—the agency provides money and technical expertise, as well as publicity and prestige, to these community projects.
NHAs move the federal government into one more aspect of private life. They provide justification for local governments that want to adopt cultural-heritage-related zoning laws and other land-use restrictions. Although “designation as a National Heritage Area does not involve Federal regulation of private property,” according to the National Park Service (2005a), it gives local preservation interests the backing of the federal government. A heritage area “benefits from national recognition due to its association with the National Park Service through the use of
the NPS arrowhead symbol as a branding strategy,” says the National
Park Service (2005b). If the local management group does not meet the standards of the federally approved management plan, funding will diminish or cease. This creates an incentive to bend to the wishes of the National Park Service.
Despite such worries, NHAs are not a land grab—yet. Some, however, worry because the National Park Service agency has been taken to court numerous times for trying to restrict the freedom of inholders and persuade them to move out of the park boundaries .2 For example, a family that owns 410 acres within Wrangell-St. Elias National Park in Alaska has been suing the Park Service since 2003, trying to maintain access to its property.
Indeed, one goal of National Heritage Area proponents may be to add national parks. The management board of the Rivers of Steel NHA in Pennsylvania has announced that it wants to create an urban park, the Homestead Works National Park. The location would be on land currently designated for heritage use (Rivers of Steel 2005). This action would seem to undercut the stated claim that heritage areas “allow the Park Service to fulfill this mission [preservation of historic and natural resources deemed nationally significant] without having to acquire or manage more land” (NPS 2005b).
A redeeming feature of heritage areas is that they form only a minute portion of the federal budget. Currently, each heritage area can receive no more than $1 million per year, and all such funding has a sunset date between ten and fifteen years after funding starts. Funding is supposed to be seed money, matched by local private funding. In 2003 congressional testimony, however, de Teel Patterson Tiller, acting associate director for cultural resources for the National Park Service, admitted that “to date, self sufficiency has yet to be achieved with any NHAs, and the first four NHAs established have sought and received Congressional extensions of their funding” (Tiller 2003). The dissipation of taxpayer-funded government resources may be small, but it may still be wasteful.
Creating “heritage areas” is not an inherently bad idea. The preservation of truly significant areas or historic sites opens up possibilities for research, education, and tourism. Around the country, private museums, historical societies, and state and city governments are doing just that. If they are supported by members of the local community, they can achieve the same results as NHAs—without losing local autonomy, wasting federal resources, or risking attacks on private property.
http://www.perc.org/publications/percreports/june2005/ntl_heritage_areas.php
HERITAGE BILLS INTRODUCED, 108th CONGRESS
http://www.cr.nps.gov/heritageareas/LEG/introbills.pdf
And you Zarkman are an astute individual!
With all due respect, why do you guys constantly mix up National Parks with National Heritage Areas ? Legally they are totally different entities. National Heritage Areas are not National Parks, not even close (although a National Heritage Area can have an existing National Park within its borders).
National Heritage Areas are designed to preserve private property while also preserving whatever it is that the area is supposed to be about.
National Heritage Areas are basically and eastern phenomenon. These are areas that are not suitable for National parks. There currently are 27 National Heritage Areas which operate with varying levels of success. They are much different from National Parks and rely on local support to keep them running. If the locals don't like them, they cannot survive.
They'll do their ping list thing and pretty soon there will be dozens of sycophants chanting "liar liar, traitor, traitor, Bushbot, Bushbot"
In the ping list world the winner is not the side with the facts and logic, but the side that can shout "liar" the most times.
Ping-a-Ling, everybody!!!
Actually I think Tillers testimony may be out of date. the latest figures I saw indicate that at least 5 NHA's are levering their Federal money at rations of 5 private $$$ to every Federal $ or greater. I think one NHA is currently bringing in about 15 private $$$ to every Federal $, which is an excellent result.
As for Rivers of Steel, I am familiar with the attempt to get a National Park there. I honestly don't think they need one but apparently the City of Pittsburg and the NHA feel that it is a good idea to pursue. They are in for a long difficult road if they try to do it. New National Parks in urban areas are very rare.
I only support National heritage Area designation for areas that want it and that have a story to tell of National interest. The reason that Crossroads (which is now a state of New Jersey Heritage Area) is going for National recognition is twofold. 1) the story we tell is of National importance (the American Revolution) and our story directly relates to New England, New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, maryland and Virginia. New Jersey's Revolutionary War story meshes well with existing National Parks in other states such as Independance, Valley Forge, Saratoga etc. 2) The input of the NPS and higher profile of an NHA make tourism a bigger reality. The NPS for all its faults has some excellent programs for interpretation which can be applied across the Heritage Area for a consistent image that a visitor can see and learn from. I am not going to lie to you, the money doesn't hurt either.
HA! good one!
As I said, time to pull the GOP's feeding tube.
And when you go to buy a new one you'll pay $10,000 just to get something like a Yugo. If they don't happen to pass a law right around that time that makes it illegal or near impossible to own a car at all.
Ok so they just need to shuffle the shells a little more.
And because it was so difficult to obtain you KNOW that land will never NOT belong to the government again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.