Correspondence: suggestions for the Commission (2 of 2), 1977-1991, p. 27 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 27 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 ...
As illustrations of the scope of these incompatible developments, during the
past 5 years, 29 new improvements were constructed at Grand Teton National
Park at an estimated value of $1,^9,**00; 16 new improvements were constructed
at Yoscmite National Park at an estimated value of $1,00*4,500; and 28 new
improvements were constructed at Olympic National Park at an estimated value
of $^29,275. Similar developments have occurred at other areas but to a
lesser degree.
As a result of these inquiries, the National Park Service felt it imperative
to look into this matter of incompatible developments to determine the cause.
It was determined that the principal cause was the ambiguity contained in
the existing land acquisition policy. This policy was then rewritten to
eliminate this ambiguity and to"assure that appropriate action is taken not
only in the inholding areas but in all the areas of the National Park System
to avoid any incompatible development or use.
*
The Congress, on many occasions during the past.several years, has expressed
its intent that all privately owned land within the areas of the National
Park System be acquired. This has been and still remains a goal ofjgthe
Department of the "interior and the National Park Service. Because of high
escalation costs and damage to our natural resources resulting from delays
in acquisition, funding for land acquisition has increased substantially in
recent years.
In summary, the revised land acquisition policy is necessary to avoid further
desecration of our parks. It is firmly believed that is a proper action and
Is in keeping with the obligation and responsiblity of the National- Fark Service
to all Americans to assure that these park areas are protected for present —
and future generations.
The following Is my analysis of the
Interior Department figures shown above
35.2 V. ill ion spent to buy land and destroy homes
106.7 Million needed to destroy the rest of our hemes
tfl.9 Conservative estimate of all property at 1978 prices
- 115.0 Estimated value of all property in 1969.
96.9 Conservative estimate of eight years of inflation
Listed value of new
construction which
occured during a five
year period
Grand Teton
Yosemite
Olympic
Other (est.
Total cost of
new homes
1,^9.^00
1,00^,500
^29,275
2,000,000
^,883,175
^,883,17^
76,900,000
= 6J6i93% increase due to new heme:
For only a 6.tf& increase in purchase price over a 5 (five)
year period, our right to add onto our home was denied.
For only 1 .£.% a year this government can deny a freedom so
basic to our daily existence that the founders of our
country never thought to include the right to build onto
5 in t^e const
len
the United States
;ui
t? 7
Object Description
Description
| Title | Correspondence: suggestions for the Commission (2 of 2), 1977-1991, p. 27 |
| 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 | As illustrations of the scope of these incompatible developments, during the past 5 years, 29 new improvements were constructed at Grand Teton National Park at an estimated value of $1,^9,**00; 16 new improvements were constructed at Yoscmite National Park at an estimated value of $1,00*4,500; and 28 new improvements were constructed at Olympic National Park at an estimated value of $^29,275. Similar developments have occurred at other areas but to a lesser degree. As a result of these inquiries, the National Park Service felt it imperative to look into this matter of incompatible developments to determine the cause. It was determined that the principal cause was the ambiguity contained in the existing land acquisition policy. This policy was then rewritten to eliminate this ambiguity and to"assure that appropriate action is taken not only in the inholding areas but in all the areas of the National Park System to avoid any incompatible development or use. * The Congress, on many occasions during the past.several years, has expressed its intent that all privately owned land within the areas of the National Park System be acquired. This has been and still remains a goal ofjgthe Department of the "interior and the National Park Service. Because of high escalation costs and damage to our natural resources resulting from delays in acquisition, funding for land acquisition has increased substantially in recent years. In summary, the revised land acquisition policy is necessary to avoid further desecration of our parks. It is firmly believed that is a proper action and Is in keeping with the obligation and responsiblity of the National- Fark Service to all Americans to assure that these park areas are protected for present — and future generations. The following Is my analysis of the Interior Department figures shown above 35.2 V. ill ion spent to buy land and destroy homes 106.7 Million needed to destroy the rest of our hemes tfl.9 Conservative estimate of all property at 1978 prices - 115.0 Estimated value of all property in 1969. 96.9 Conservative estimate of eight years of inflation Listed value of new construction which occured during a five year period Grand Teton Yosemite Olympic Other (est. Total cost of new homes 1,^9.^00 1,00^,500 ^29,275 2,000,000 ^,883,175 ^,883,17^ 76,900,000 = 6J6i93% increase due to new heme: For only a 6.tf& increase in purchase price over a 5 (five) year period, our right to add onto our home was denied. For only 1 .£.% a year this government can deny a freedom so basic to our daily existence that the founders of our country never thought to include the right to build onto 5 in t^e const len the United States ;ui t? 7 |
| Filename | indep-box23-14-03~025.tif |
| Archival file | Volume78/indep-box23-14-03~025.tif |
