"After more than seven decades of ownership, the Rouchs have struck a deal to sell their sequoia-studded piece of the Sierra Nevada to the Save the Redwoods League, a century-old conservation group that has long hankered after the property."
> The [Save the Redwoods] league recently signed a purchase agreement with the family, and is seeking $15 million from the public to acquire the land and the giant sequoias on it, nearly 500 of which have a diameter of six feet or more.
Someone just make a gofundme and turn it into public land.
I do. Who do you blame?
Might be far easier to get a rich person to fork over the $15m and then hand it over to the forest service, like so:
"The league plans to transfer the land to the US Forest Service in the next decade, which will make it part of the Giant Sequoia National Monument."
The problem with expecting the park service to acquire all land that’s good for parks is that in the Sierras there really is a huge amount of land that would be amazing for parks. California has more nice parkland than anywhere else I’m aware of, and the government already struggles at times to maintain it all, so I wouldn’t expect them to necessarily be aggressively expanding.
It’s always going to be these people that that created the most wealth that are paying. It’s much better to have them pay for it directly than to have the government tax them and have the government pay. The former eliminates all the waste involved with paying bureaucrats to take the money as taxes and more bureaucrats to spend the money that was taken. I would be surprised if the government would have to tax at least $16 million to be able to spend $15 million but this grove of redwoods.
Correct, the former eliminates all the waste involved in a functioning democracy.
The Lord having a duty to his peasants to protect parts of the land and pay for its upkeep.
I hate popups that can't be dismissed. But reader mode works regardless, at least.
There are a number of ways to demonstrate that you are not doing business in the EU and thus do not have to comply with the GDPR and can refuse tracking-free access.
But I guess that we'll see. I'm sure that complaints have been lodged.
While there are many companies that have chosen to try and block users in the EU, I don't think this is required, or intended by GDPR.
No, it applies to "data subjects who are in the Union" (art. 3 - "Territorial scope"), not from the Union.
(This is for non-EU data processing organizations; the EU-based organizations/companies must apply the GDPR to everyone in the world)
Shame that this property will probably be bulldozed and exploited like every other natural resource on this planet.
To downvoters, is it because I'm right, or because you don't like the consequences?