Pa Kettle assuming Arnold's burden?

[franksolich]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D995Q9I00&show_article=1

Oh my.

To me, it sounds very possible.

Feds could seize Calif. parks if closed by budget

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - The California governor's office says federal officials are threatening to seize six state parks if they are closed to help balance the state's budget.
 
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed closing 220 state parks.

But the National Park Service warned in a letter to Schwarzenegger that six of those parks are on former federal land that could revert to the U.S. government if they are not kept open as parks.

State officials say they're trying to work with federal authorities to forestall a possible seizure. The state could also lose federal park funds.

The parks are Angel Island and Mount Diablo near San Francisco; Point Sur in Big Sur; and beaches at Fort Ord Dunes near Monterey, Point Mugu near Malibu; and Border Fields along the Mexican border.

First, assuming the expenses of the parks.

And then assuming the expenses of the roads.

And then assuming the expenses of the schools.

&c., &c., &c.

So that in the end, the American taxpayers subsidize California.

[Rebel]

How, in any possible way, is this constitutional?

[djones520]

How, in any possible way, is this constitutional?

Like that matters?

[thundley4]

But the National Park Service warned in a letter to Schwarzenegger that six of those parks are on former federal land that could revert to the U.S. government if they are not kept open as parks.

For a change, I don't have much problem with this other than the Federal government doesn't haven't the money to keep the parks open either.

[franksolich]

How, in any possible way, is this constitutional?

It's probably utterly aboveboard and constitutional in that when the federal government gave the land to the state, it was with the understanding that the state would maintain it as public parks.

Well, the state's probably going to renege on the agreement, closing them, which means the federal government can take back its "gift."

I don't think the federal government, if it took the parks back, is going to let them lay fallow; I'll bet they operate as federal parks, which does nothing to ease any burden on the taxpayers of the other 49 states.

After which "federalization" of this-and-that in California, until the taxpayers of the other 49 states are keeping California afloat.

[ironhorsedriver]

What it will be is a test case for the Federal Government to take away the States powers and rights. If you recall, the Federal Government has shut down parks, for short periods, due to un signed budgets, or other issues. Once a precedent of Federal takeover of a State Operated or Governed entity is done successfully, it will be used as precedent in Federal Court to up hold the same in any other case.

[Thor]

If it was deemed as "Federal Land" at one point, that means that land is only "loaned" to the state, as far as I understand. Lake Texoma, here on the Texas/ Oklahoma border used to be state operated and unencumbered as far as fees, etc. Now, it is run by the Army Corps of Engineers and to even drive around the lake, one has to pay a $3 fee. Camping and other activities are even more. They've also removed access to some once favorite parts of the lake.