I recently sent the following letter to the New York Times:

To the Editor:

“A Resounding Vote for Open Space,” (editorial, Nov. 18) notes that voters in several states approved large spending proposals for preserving open land.  The editorial wrongly concludes that Congress should follow suit and “grant permanent wilderness protection to two million acres of public land.”

The federal government already owns 650 million acres of land – nearly 30% of the total U.S. territory.  It doesn’t need more. That voters chose to approve open land initiatives at the state level doesn’t amount to “an explicit rebuke to President Bush,” but instead shows the popularity of local control. Approving state money through referendums ensures that those who live near preservation lands – and thus receive most of the benefits – are the ones to bear the costs.

The government should do the opposite of what the editorial suggests: sell as much federal land as it can and help close the federal budget’s record shortfalls.

Sincerely,

Brian Garst

 Print This Post