SPECIAL FEATURES:
Email
Alaska proposes federal takeover of NYC's Central Park
Declaring turnabout is fair play, Alaskans tired of interference from 'East Coast environmentalists' offer a legislative retort.
Mon, Jan 30 2012 at 4:56 PM
Related Topics:
Photo: Dave Bledsoe/Flickr
Alaskan state legislators are tired of interference from East Coast environmentalists into their state's affairs. Hoping to make a point with what Republican state Rep. Kyle Johansen calls "political satire," legislators have introduced a bill that would declare New York City's Central Park "to be a wilderness area and to prohibit any further improvement or development of Central Park unless authorized by an act of Congress."
Johansen told the New York Times that he is trying to point out the "hypocrisy" of "those East Coast folks who write a lot of checks to shut down Alaska, while in their own backyard, Manhattan has been turned from a pristine wild island supporting an amazing Muir web of life to having only Central Park left as a green belt."
The bill, HJR31, was introduced into the Alaskan state legislature last week. It comes in response to resistance toward opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska to oil development and drilling. Many Alaskan state legislators from both political parties support drilling in AWNR, which became a federally protected area in 1960 and was later expanded in 1980. Congressional approval is required for oil development in the 29,687 square miles of ANWR's "Area 1002."
According to the bill's sponsors, Area 1002 represents 8 percent of Alaska, while Central Park represents 6 percent of Manhattan, so it's a fair trade.
The bill digs deep into Central Park's history, pointing out that before Henry Hudson landed in Manhattan in 1609, the area was home to at least 1,000 species and 55 different "ecological communities, including 25 terrestrial communities, wetlands, pond and stream communities, and estuarine communities."
Interestingly, the Times also dug deep, revealing that candidates for New York's Senate seat really did debate handing Central Park over to the National Park Service back in 1976.
Central Park is currently protected as a New York state park, and it falls under the Public Trust Doctrine, which prohibits any non-recreation use of the park without prior state legislature approval, Parks Commissioner Adrian Benepe told the Times.
The Times' readers had fun with the proposal. "Let them try and take it," wrote one commenter. "I know some guy's from the Bronx and Washington Heights who will meet up with them and give them a tour. Let Alaska go back to keeping an eye on Russia."
According to the official Central Park web site, the park is home to 25,000 trees representing 152 species. According to the official AWNR web site, the refuge is home to "42 fish species, 37 land mammals, eight marine mammals, and more than 200 migratory and resident bird species."
You might also like:
Sign in with one of these accounts to add your comment.
EDITORS' PICKS
Advertisement
TODAY'S MOST POPULAR ON
- 13 natural remedies for the ant invasion
- Watch: Sir David Attenborough deals with a band of cannibals the British way
- What a grocery store without bees looks like
- Yurts: Everything you ever wanted to know but were afraid to ask
- Facepalm of the week: Non-GMO salt!?
- 10 false facts most people think are true
- 5 recipes for garlic scapes
- 7 surprising things Pope Francis has done in his first 100 days
- Student science experiment finds plants won't grow near Wi-Fi router
- Emergency Bra saves you and a friend
NEWSLETTER
Advertisement
Damn hippies
Alaska is not a country, and the ANWR belongs to EVERYONE in the United States of America. So hands off!
Well I'm gonna make it a country! And I'm serious too!!! The US has gotten out of hand and is being tooken over by muslims and Homosexuals.
All public land *does* belong to the United States of America. By the way, states are subservient to the Federal Government, as in, not as powerful. There was a war about that, remember?
That was too funny!!! It's so true. Most people don't take the time to learn the facts about Alaska. They just assume (a lot). I love the quote about the guys from the Bronx. I'd love to see a bunch of NCYers up against some Alaskans. LOL.
I fail to see the downside to this proposed bill. How is it satire if it's legitimately a good idea?
NYC has proven to be a good steward of this piece of former pasture land. Unlike Alaska, where they plan on destroying wilderness, the city took this land, set it aside and has maintained it. It's safe from destruction in pursuit of monetary gain
And since the other 95 % is already developed, let's not give Alaskans the same choice?
spoken like a true citzen of the east coast
The current pollution, over population and climate warming are serious enough issues that all nations may be subject to intervention to derive responsible compliance. The old game is now dead and a new wave must be welcomed by all. There is no choice.
That would be great if whoever wants to develop Central Park was really to blame for federal laws regarding wild areas in Alaska. If Sarah Palin hadn't already proven it, I'd say this gesture offers pretty good evidence that Alaskans (or at least their politicians) have no idea how the US government works. Too bad Bob Ross isn't around; he could show us how to paint happy trees growing next to pipelines.
Oh Gawd, you HAD to mention Sarah! *shudders*
The suggestion is really stupid. Alaska stop trying to create a class war. The environment is now everyone's concern. You had temps that was 49 below zero. NYC had 55 degrees in January. Don't you think there's a problem?
Comparing wide open range to a heat island, why don't you leave Alaska alone?
The heat island effect of a city is a idea that comes from the same science and facts that make up the argument for climate change. are you saying that the heat island effect is scientifically relevant yet climate change is not? Should we believe science or shouldnt we?
I'll pass on the Liberal cool-aid.. i dont like the taste
Nobody should believe an agenda driven psuedo-scientific finding.
Good going Alaska!
Not a dumbass
hey, at least they're thinking!
Wouldn't a National Park trump local firearm laws? People would be able to walk around with loaded shotguns in the park. That would be priceless.
State and local laws determine what is legal to carry inside the park. If someone can't wander around with a gun in Boston, they can't take one into Boston National Historical Park either. If they can wander around with a concealed firearm in the state of Alaska, they can do the same in Denali. The only exclusions are the federal buildings where federal employees are regularly working. Firearms are still off limits there.
Pages