Correspondence: suggestions for the Commission (2 of 2), 1977-1991, p. 25 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 25 of 314 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
Loading content ...
After eight years of a rather successful "willing seller (?)
willing buyer" program, during which the National Park Service
acquired over half of all private property surrounded by them,
something caused the National Park Service to abandon this policy
and seek to condemn our homes. Was their action due to the "tremendous expansion of private exploitive and environmentally damaging
new construction"? Or, was it to cover up their illegal activities
before a court challenge filed in Fresno, California brought them to
public attention?
The following is an enclosure sent to both Mark W. Hannaford
and Glen Anderson. In this document the National Park Service, in
co-operation with Phillip Burton and "others" on the House Subcommittee
on National Parks and Insular Affairs, wrote an explanation blaming
^their policy change on the high rate of inflation and "widespread"
new construction. At the bottom of the second page you will find a
mathematical analysis of the extent of this "environmentally damaging
new construction".
Object Description
Description
| Title | Correspondence: suggestions for the Commission (2 of 2), 1977-1991, p. 25 |
| Format (imt) | image/tiff |
| Physical access | Contact: Special Collections, Doheny Memorial Library, Libraries, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0189; specol@dots.usc.edu |
| Full text | After eight years of a rather successful "willing seller (?) willing buyer" program, during which the National Park Service acquired over half of all private property surrounded by them, something caused the National Park Service to abandon this policy and seek to condemn our homes. Was their action due to the "tremendous expansion of private exploitive and environmentally damaging new construction"? Or, was it to cover up their illegal activities before a court challenge filed in Fresno, California brought them to public attention? The following is an enclosure sent to both Mark W. Hannaford and Glen Anderson. In this document the National Park Service, in co-operation with Phillip Burton and "others" on the House Subcommittee on National Parks and Insular Affairs, wrote an explanation blaming ^their policy change on the high rate of inflation and "widespread" new construction. At the bottom of the second page you will find a mathematical analysis of the extent of this "environmentally damaging new construction". |
| Filename | indep-box23-14-03~023.tif |
| Archival file | Volume78/indep-box23-14-03~023.tif |
