70-year-old Charity Told to Stop Feeding Homeless in Seattle

[Acala]

Now you are talking about forest and BLM land.
I am talking about parks. Are you going to tell me national parks are mismanaged?
Come to some West Coast natural national parks.

National parks make up a tiny fraction of land owned by government.

But I agree that National parks are typically not mismanaged in the ways I described that the vast majority of government land is abused. They are often mismanaged in other ways. See the great Yellowstone Park fire, for an example. Or see the closure of the Grand Canyon over Federal budget battles.

But I'll make you a deal - sell off all the Federal government land other than the parks with the stipulation that the land can only be purchased by real human beings (not corporations) and only by American citizens. But don't sell the National Parks and instead turn them over to the States. I would be okay with that compromise.

[UWDude]

National parks make up a tiny fraction of land owned by government.

But I agree that National parks are typically not mismanaged in the ways I described that the vast majority of government land is abused. They are often mismanaged in other ways. See the great Yellowstone Park fire, for an example. Or see the closure of the Grand Canyon over Federal budget battles.

But I'll make you a deal - sell off all the Federal government land other than the parks with the stipulation that the land can only be purchased by real human beings (not corporations) and only by American citizens. But don't sell the National Parks and instead turn them over to the States. I would be okay with that compromise.

So would I, with two stipulations:
1) that people who buy the land can donate it to national parks.
My grandma has it in her will to donate dozens of acres to the BLM.

2) land that has already been donated to the BLM or National Forests for preservation remain protected for conservation. Even a conservation charity would not be acceptable, as charities can fold.

[BAllen]

I'm not sure the supply is that limited, given the demand. Even when heavily subsidized, with a few exceptions, Federal park and forest land is barely used by hikers and campers. Vast millions of acres never see a soul. Not really a very efficient use of the resource.

But if you assume that the supply is very limited, that is MORE reason to allow markets to allocate them. Markets are REALLY good at allocating resources to meet consumer needs. If it were the case that people who like camping happened to all be really poor, and therefore unable to express a demand for camping facilities, then it is true that the market would turn those resources to other uses. But so what? The poor can't afford private airplanes either, but there is no call for government to provide them.

It is really easy to look to government to force our values on others. But it isn't right.

You have a point there about unused acreage. Then again, look at the case of that mountain man show. He lives near Boone. He wants people to see how pioneers lived. Someone wants his land to develop it, and he's being pressured by government for his buildings not being up to code. Is that right?