[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [at-l] Saddleback Mtn. & NPS

Pox Populi wrote:

> Right. Refusing to accept less than $200,000 for 900 acres
> of mountaintop -- almost twice what is legislatively necessary
> to protect the Appalachian Trail corridor -- is an attempt
> to "swindle the US taxpayer." I've got news for you darling,
> you can't buy unbuildable deer yard in these parts for that
> price, let alone a mountain that can be developed commercially.
> The current NPS purchase offer is an insult that was rightfully
> rejected.
>

The offer was based on appraisal.  This is a requirement of federal law.

> Meanwhile, those in the "trail community" who want to protect
> this section of the trail seem perfectly willing to let the
> taxpayer foot the bill. It makes one wonder who is "swindling"
> who here. If any of you jokers are willing to put your money
> where your mouths are, there should at least be a Saddleback
> A.T. corridor purchase fund to which people can contribute.
>

I object to your use of the term "swindle".  Taxpayer money is my
money.  I'm a citizen and have a right to assert my view of how it
should be spent.  Protection of the AT became part of the national
mission when Congress passed the National Scenic Trails Act.  I'd be
willing to bet that if put to a referendum, voters nationwide (and in
Maine) would support this use of their funds.

> Keep in mind that hikers don't contribute much to the economy,
> unlike the "beautiful people" who take to the slopes.
>

Fortunately, the choice isn't between the ski resort (which already
exists, and has other room to expand) and the Trail.  The NPS proposal
allows for both.

* From the Appalachian Trail Mailing List | For info http://www.hack.net/lists *

==============================================================================