It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

U.S. land managers reject development near Grand Canyon

page: 1
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Great new, ATS! The Grand Canyon will not fall victim to developers who wantr to turn it into a sports/entertainment development. I did a thread on this subject last year when the plan was first announced:

www.abovetopsecret.com...






(Reuters) - U.S. land managers on Friday rejected a plan that could have opened the way for housing and commercial expansion near the Grand Canyon’s celebrated South Rim, a surprise decision that was decried by developers but praised by environmental groups.

The plan submitted by the town of Tusayan, a community of about 600 residents on the outskirts of Arizona’s most famous national park, called for shops, restaurants, hotels and more than 2,000 homes on acreage near the South Rim.

But the development, which was to include 3 million square feet of commercial space, was contingent on the U.S. Forest Service agreeing to road upgrades and utility installations on national forest land adjoining the park.


This is great news!!!! The issues of pollution and environmental waste would have ruined a national treasure in my opinion. What says ATS?

news.yahoo.com...




posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 09:23 AM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

Thanks. It is good news.



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 09:49 AM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

If Donald Trump wins the election; he will reverse the decision and build a casino resort.



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

Let us hope that the Grand Canyon does not fall victim to this....


“It wasn’t clear why some Arizona leaders would defy overwhelming support for protecting the Greater Grand Canyon region,” said Roger Clark, the Grand Canyon Program Director with the Grand Canyon Trust. “Now we know: backing a national monument would undercut their political patrons who are invested in undermining efforts to protect public lands.” Just last month, Senator John McCain was the beneficiary of Koch-backed dark money when the Judicial Crisis Network ran paid ads on the senator’s behalf to provide cover for obstructing consideration of Justice Antonin Scalia’s replacement.

thinkprogress.org...

I think that the greatest danger to the Grand Canyon will be a poisonous brew of a president hillary and the koch brothers.



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 10:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: lostbook

If Donald Trump wins the election; he will reverse the decision and build a casino resort.


He'd build a golf course and conference center. And buy up all the surrounding land so no wind farms would spoil the view



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 10:53 AM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

Good to hear integrity still exists...somewhere.

S&F



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 02:20 PM
link   
a reply to: lostbook

I support some development outside of all the national parks. Services within the parks are terrible, they are eliminating auto fuel, limiting food availability and parking. Parks should be supporting visitation, not coming up with ways to prevent it.

For specifically Grand Canyon, the average visitor spends only 15 minutes, this is a drive thru park. The crazy environmentalists want visitors to park their cars outside of the park forcing them to ride a train that they want to build instead. No one would go if they had to spend $20 per person and an extra 1-2 hours of travel time to spend 15 minutes looking at a hole in the ground. Actually, by driving you stop at about 5 places along the way to see different views of the canyon.



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: chuckk
a reply to: lostbook

I support some development outside of all the national parks. Services within the parks are terrible, they are eliminating auto fuel, limiting food availability and parking. Parks should be supporting visitation, not coming up with ways to prevent it.

For specifically Grand Canyon, the average visitor spends only 15 minutes, this is a drive thru park. The crazy environmentalists want visitors to park their cars outside of the park forcing them to ride a train that they want to build instead. No one would go if they had to spend $20 per person and an extra 1-2 hours of travel time to spend 15 minutes looking at a hole in the ground. Actually, by driving you stop at about 5 places along the way to see different views of the canyon.


The development in question is more than just more parking spaces and places to eat, the plan is for an entire development. A development which would include: a mall, hotels, a tram, a movie theater, shops, restaurants, and more than 2,000 homes on acreage near the South Rim. This would've been the end of the Grand Canyon as a natural wonder as trash, pollution, and noise would've taken over. Rejecting it is the best decision.



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 02:58 PM
link   
But. But.
The federal government cannot own land. The federal government has no legal say.

But. But.



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
But. But.
The federal government cannot own land. The federal government has no legal say.

But. But.


Well, Phage. All butts aside, this development isn't happening and that's a good thing.



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 03:08 PM
link   
a reply to: lostbook
Indeed.



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: chuckk
a reply to: lostbook

I support some development outside of all the national parks. Services within the parks are terrible, they are eliminating auto fuel, limiting food availability and parking. Parks should be supporting visitation, not coming up with ways to prevent it.

For specifically Grand Canyon, the average visitor spends only 15 minutes, this is a drive thru park. The crazy environmentalists want visitors to park their cars outside of the park forcing them to ride a train that they want to build instead. No one would go if they had to spend $20 per person and an extra 1-2 hours of travel time to spend 15 minutes looking at a hole in the ground. Actually, by driving you stop at about 5 places along the way to see different views of the canyon.



This guy has it right above.

I live here, I have to be honest, environmental controls handed down from the Fed are always retarded, their ideas in regards to logging have cost Tens of Thousands of acres to fires, nobody from the USA it seems ever even goes to the Canyon anymore if they do it's a pass through to something else, there isn't the money to care for it right....

I hate it when people that do not live somewhere, do not know the actual situation, just look at an artists concept from elsewhere and think they are "green" or try to be trendy and have viewpoints....

The Canyon can only benefit from money, the natives on the res live in terrible condition and the Feds just keep ruining their lives and rot out on the reservation, they need jobs, it's THEIR f'n Canyon not Obama's after all in the end...

The reality is and let me be clear here....

It sucks to visit the Grand Canyon as is, nobody wants to ride a god damn mule for days extra effort, people don't come here and spend the money that could be used to protect the canyon for future generations for real, the local natives suffer from this well meaning bs and aren't an actual draw for tourism begging for change where there could have been something nice....

The raw truth is, these images are ridiculous too... The Canyon is 300 Miles across, they depict these images of some outlet stores as standing over the Canyon and "ruining nature" which is utter bs, the buildings would have to be 10 stories tall just to be seen over the Ponderosa pines lol, they would be virtually invisible, the Impact of a few locations where there is "Plumbing" is BETTER than tour buses full of Chinese Tourists Pissing off the Canyon walls lol, Plumbing and places to eat are better than POO and Piss IN the Canyon, it's basic "logic" which the Fed has none of, ever it seems...

Actually visiting the Canyon where Rangers can get kids by the Ear and teach them a little something about conservation is a GOOD thing for the future of the environment, it's education and sorry but... there is nothing from here..."Flagstaff" for 100 miles to the Canyon but some Flintstones place that is abandoned and looks like an axe murder will kill you there... it's no fun, no child wants to go sit in a car for over an hrs each way from last civilization to go look off the edge of a cliff for 15 minutes and leave and not even have a place to pee the whole time, or anything to do...

As I said, I LIVE here, I have 300 miles of Trees out my door, there is so much wild life I can't hold onto a car for more than a year because Elk incidents on the road, there is no environmental ruination for a few stores, so Thanks, thanks for screwing up our neighborhood with bad ideas, thanks for thinking you know something people because without some locations with "stuff" to break up the forest a bit one day you will watch the entire South Rim burn down and there won't be a damn thing to enjoy or camp in... Why? because the Forest here is NOT natural this way, it's over grown and this extra protection causes massive fires that hopefully me or my kids wont die in because of arm chair environmental science failures, the same kind who will protest naming a team after "Natives" from a starbucks somewhere while being activists for other issues that will put 1000 Navajos in a position to remain in poverty



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 06:29 PM
link   
And I apologize btw, I don't want to sound harsh, I get this thread is well meaning, it's just in the end another topic that is actually completely of base in regards to reality.

You are talking about "acerage" of an area that is enormous, thousands of sq miles of nothing, my walk to the store for basics 2 Miles, 7 if I want a real supermarket and i'm 100 miles from the rim of the Canyon lol

But I have to ask? Who staffs the Canyon? Who fly's the helicopters that rescue the people who fall weak? Maintains the Hospital? What about the people who wanted this that live in shacks on the res? the people the place belonged too in the first place? The Rangers that live here?

What about US? We say it's okay, we need some stuff the economy is scary as hell it wont make a dent...

Then we are told to drop dead for all intents and purposes and articles are run in like... The Village Voice in NYC lol in regards to some industrial catastrophe... one that you could never even see if you drove by it within 100 ft if there wasn't a rd sign because you are talking about 30 foot structures in height surrounded by 120 foot trees....

One post above says "I don't know why Arizonas would want"....

I dunno lol, why would the effin Park Ranger who loves the park, cares for the park, lives at the park, ever want to be able to buy his kids something to wear or have a decent meal?



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 06:33 PM
link   
a reply to: criticalhit

I discovered our parks and public lands when I was in my 20's and fell in love. Like a lot of things, maybe there is no black or white answer. I just know losing all our lands to private industries, well, I would not want to live in that america. No trespassing signs everywhere, can't even pull over and pee behind a bush east of the Rockies.



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 07:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: lostbook
Indeed.


Indeed, it seems so, Phage.



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

You see, perceptions... they aren't always correct, very often based on concerns, altered by our way of thinking.

You say East of the Rockies not a place to pee?

That's a ride I do quite a bit, coast to coast and I have to say, Denver to Kansas? okay used for Farmland but it's big sky country the whole way, beautiful. Missouri? aside from one city ridiculously natural, all the way to new England honestly much of every state is natural and in fact Greener than most of the West and supports far more wildlife.

I'm sorry but The Great Lakes are bad off for having human habitation along them in places? 2 minutes in a boat and I might as well have gone back to some time before man existed, Adirondack State Park is immense, so is the Adirondack trail, you can walk to the everglades practically and never see a car if you did it right.

Heck even in NYC, i'm into deer and wildlife before I can even ride my bike over the GW Bridge.

I'm sorry but it seems Americans are slowly loosing a grasp on reality for all forms of extremism left and right and can't really see the "Mall through the Tree" so to speak, lol

This article refers to a small in scale location for commerce

The Canyon Park is 1,218,375.54 acres the proposed site 420 acres... roughly 1/3000th of the space and that doesn't even really factor it because the Mogollon rim is another 300 miles across, the res to Colorado is another 300-400 miles in that direction all virtually empty...

You describe a world like "anywhere past the rockies" where one can not stop and pee....

I see that NY State has the second largest area of land put aside for conservation in the continental USA, that it is greener, larger than anything West of the Rockies and vastly populated with wildlife to a degree where in most of NY State your 2 year old might be eaten by a Bear in your yard...

And every small town in upstate NY has a University, Trains run to the City so people can work, there is land put aside for amusement parks so income to preserve the land is obtained...

And it works, and it's better... Seattle is home to perhaps the center of "Saran Wrap everything and kill all the people" kind of environmentalist thinking, and I have to say, it's not better than NY, there is more land, more living things (it's a different forest, The Cascades are high a lot is Tundra at times of year, I know.... i'd even say the rain forest by nature is more diverse) But NY State often has serious control issues in regards to animal populations, it's thick with life of the Mammalian variety, there's so much free wilderness and people "share" it just fine, you can fit whole states into it, there is no loss of Nature.



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: criticalhit

Are you suppose to ignore fences and signs?



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 07:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: lostbook

If Donald Trump wins the election; he will reverse the decision and build a casino resort.


No gambling in AZ unless it is on an Indian reservation. (And the Don ain't native American)

Unlike Hillary and Obama, Trump isn't a lying dishonest felon, but you already knew that.
I will help him get the laws changed and go in on a casino resort right there at the GC. Just think of how much we can charge for those premium view rooms! (Who cares about the environment anyway?)



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: criticalhit

Well, I may not live near the canyon but I am from Arizona; was born in Phoenix. My family and I would drive up to the Canyon to visit and we really loved it. The Canyon holds a special memory for me as it is. I do hear your plight but I just don't think a big corporate development is the answer. Can't you just imagine what a bunch of bored teens will do to the canyon? I know it's not a utopia now but just imagine the problems which exist ten-fold. There will be air pollution, water pollution, noise pollution, crime, drugs, gangs, prostitution, and anything else you can think of in abundance.



posted on Mar, 5 2016 @ 07:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: criticalhit

Are you suppose to ignore fences and signs?


What "Fences and signs"?

Unless the States size prevents it I can't think of One State East of the Rockies that doesn't have Hundreds of KM's of contiguous wilderness.

Your making up nonsense, I could take you in a car to upstate Ny where there is tons of stuff to do 115 Universities and the capacity to be a human being on every level, and still there is more national park than your entire State, lol. What your saying is just absolute lies and nonsense. We could go out from any town or outlet and I could drop you off and even if you are an extremely experienced outdoors person you would need days to find people and would be at risk of dying... let alone be stopped by "fences"



new topics




 
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join