Americans have been led into this narrative that goes like this: setting aside land for parks and preserves and open space in general is bad, because it gives the government power and runs counter to the principle of private property. The problem is that property values adjacent to open-space set-asides go up. (Do you own land near one of San Diego's canyons? What do you think would happen to your property values if suddenly that canyon were filled with apartments?) So the question is, who's pushing this narrative? If open space benefits property owners, and the general public, and wildlife, who does it hurt? Developers, who want to make an extra dollar, that's who. So where might this narrative be coming from, we might ask?
Having said that - the following article about the last surviving (and very isolated) un-contacted Indian in part of the Amazon rainforest may not seem directly relevant but it's way interesting, and this sentence jumps out:
The question of who'd benefit from clearing the land versus preserving it boils down to two people: the individual developer and the lone Indian.
Do you own property near open hills or canyons? Or do you enjoy parks and canyons and open space? Then you're the Indian.
Day 32: Another miserable day on the trail
4 hours ago