Mt. Rainier Park Could Grow

[allthumbs]

Press

[CascadeClimber]

Well at least we know the real reason for the climbing fee increase now.

 

-L

[slothrop]

Looks like a good idea to me, though I wonder what "new public facilities" are part of the plan. Two million bucks for a thousand acres sounds steep to me.

[allthumbs]

It's no less valuable than waterfront property on Lake Washington or Mercer Island. We're running out of prime real estate and prices are way up.

[Cpt.Caveman]

Maybe if more lava fell from the summit it could grow more.

[ryland_moore]

Actually, $2 million is cheap for that type of land. Factor in the timber value and I gurantee it is over $2 million with old growth there. Also, with the sprawl of Seattle and Tacoma, who knows what developer might be able to get a zone change 10-20 years down the road. Then that property would be worth $20-$30 million with 500 2-acre ranchettes on the banks of the Carbon! Working as a director of a land trust, we rarely see properties come across our desks like this, and if we do, are usually out bidded by Weyerhaueser and the likes.

 

Sounds amazing. Also, these dollars are federally appropriated and do not have any effect on the National Park fees increase. This comes from the Dept. of Interior not having enough money in the budget for all parks across the US. Kind of like admitance into Teton-Yellowstone doubled from $10 to $20 overnight 4 years ago. It's called inflation. We get so fixed on what something is worth or what we paid for something in the past that we do not realize that it costs more to keep these places running so that we can continue to enjoy them. I have no problem paying the increased costs, b/c most of my experiences up there or on any mountain are priceless anyways. My two cents.

[CascadeClimber]

I'm fairly sure that the rate of inflation has been less than an aggregate 100% since the climbing fee was first implemented.

 

I was just kidding about those proceeds being used to buy land, but I do want to make the point that they are talking about using the increased revenue to expand services, not maintain the status quo.

 

I'd rather see the millions spent on 1000 acres of old-growth than a lot of other things.

[ryland_moore]

Expand services across the board or expand services as it relates to ranger work and administrative support?

[Ade]

Looks like a good idea to me, though I wonder what "new public facilities" are part of the plan.

 

Golf Course and driving range, Cascades Wildlife Petting Zoo, McDonalds, The "Timber Experience Project" - complete with interactive fell your own old growth exhibit.

[JoshK]

I think they should flatten spanaway and parkland and annex them into the park.

[obsydian]

Could get two high quality cruise missles for that price.

[klenke]

Dude, Josh, my parents live in Spanaway!

 

Besides, Spanaway is the crime capital of the world. So, you sure you want Spanaway as part of Mt. Rainier National Park?

 

Now Parkland on the other hand...annex away!

[JoshK]

LOL klenke. I know somebody who lives down there so I was hoping they'd get that

[MysticNacho]

As Parkland/Spanaway is a decidedly different environment than an old growth forest, I propose making it an entirely new park rather than adding it on to Mt. Rainier.

 

Visitors could experience "thug life" and getting their hubcaps removed while sitting at a traffic light. Sleazy roadside crackhouses could replace campgrounds. Recreational activities include running, (for your life ) enjoying the flora and fauna, (mostly crystal meth and an indigenous weed) and rock climbing at the greatest outdoor crag in our state, Spire Rock! Just don't grab the holds covered in urine at the base.

 

Wildlife includes low flying C-130's, and an enumerable number of lowered honda civics and the "real" Slim Shady's.

 

The park would maintain itself, being that it will alway's be perpetually spiraling into the depths of hell, and is already overcrowded. This negates any access fees or permits!