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.
Photo: Dave Bledsoe/Flickr
|
Alaska proposes federal takeover of NYC's Central ParkDeclaring turnabout is fair play, Alaskans tired of interference from 'East Coast environmentalists' offer a legislative retort.By John PlattMon, Jan 30 2012 at 5:56 PM EST
25
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:
Comments
Enter your name
02/03/2012 19:00 PM
Damn hippies
Martin
02/03/2012 18:20 PM
Alaska is not a country, and the ANWR belongs to EVERYONE in the United States of America. So hands off!
Anonymous
02/03/2012 19:00 PM
Alaska is not a country, it is a state and the land in its borders should belong to the state. By your logic, all public land belongs to the United States of America. Federal land all over the country is used for resources. ANWR is not unique and it is ridiculous to treat it as such. Alaska is 1/3 the size of the continental US and there are only 500,000 people living in it. It is empty. Are we not supposed to use any of it? If anything needs protecting it is the tiny.... More
RainyAlaska
02/03/2012 11:51 AM
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.
Loopman
02/03/2012 11:00 AM
In my own, possibly warped perspective, I would have to suggest that both side look at the cause and affect assoicated with both proposals. What would the cuase ana affect be if Central Park were to be placed under the perview of the Parks Dept. Worst case, the city of NY would no longer have to pay for the upkeep and care of the park. Is that such a bad thing? Likewise, look at the cause and affect of opening the Section 1002 to oil drilling. Thousands of jobs would be created and.... More
KP
02/03/2012 04:42 AM
I fail to see the downside to this proposed bill. How is it satire if it's legitimately a good idea?
Anonymous
02/03/2012 11:02 AM
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
jim sadler
02/01/2012 21:33 PM
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.
Bob
01/31/2012 18:33 PM
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.
KLM
01/31/2012 15:57 PM
There is a small error in the article (not in the bill). The ANILCA section 1002 area is less than 8% of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. ANWR is less than 5% of Alaska. Section 1002 is about 0.35% of Alaska. That's a bit smaller than the portion of New York State that is occupied by Schenectady County (area values from Wikipedia). In my opinion, a very small part of that land would actually be touched even if a large oil discovery were found there. Estimates are on the.... More
Savona Bailey-McClain
01/31/2012 15:33 PM
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?
Frank
01/31/2012 16:28 PM
Comparing wide open range to a heat island, why don't you leave Alaska alone?
Anonymous
01/31/2012 21:54 PM
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?
Anonymous
02/03/2012 19:00 PM
Not a dumbass
Cheryl
02/03/2012 11:32 AM
hey, at least they're thinking!
Bub
01/31/2012 09:19 AM
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.
Anonymous
02/06/2012 04:15 AM
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.
raybril
01/31/2012 07:51 AM
Well done Alaska, WELL done! Add your commentSign in with one of these accounts or just add your comment below. |
ADVERTISEMENTADVERTISEMENT |
Copyright © 2012 MNN Holdings, LLC. All Rights Reserved. Website by GLICK INTERACTIVE | Powered by CIRRACORE |
| SPONSORS |