![]() |
![]() |
|
Home | Forums | Gallery | Webcams | Blogs | YouTube Channel | Classifieds | Register | FAQ | Members List | Donate | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
![]() |
#11 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 6,386
Thanks: 1,179
Thanked 2,123 Times in 1,314 Posts
|
![]() Quote:
In any case, yes--I suppose this discussion is a reflection of one greater: where is the line between government spending taxpayer money on "unnecessary" purchases vs. those that are expensive but we know are worthy. As the son of a machinist and grocery store clerk who has depended on the US Parks system and public lands for recreation my whole life--along with millions and millions of others, including the affluent--I see a great value in purchasing and protecting valuable lands for use by everyone. Of course, this assumes the purchase is viable and won't destroy a town's financial stability. In short, in my mind, there's a very real balance that needs to be found between people's willingness to pay to keep beautiful places public and available to all rather than the few. I'd love to know where this land fell in that spectrum. Sent from my XT1528 using Tapatalk |
|
![]() |
The Following User Says Thank You to thinkxingu For This Useful Post: | ||
Cobalt 25 (01-25-2016) |
Bookmarks |
|
|