Trump Administrations Yosemite Plan Is an ‘Attack on the American People’

The Trump administration has proposed a land swap that would give a private developer access through Yosemite National Park, sparking fierce opposition.The Trump Administration has proposed handing over a portion of Yosemite National Park to a private developer in exchange for land of equivalent value, the New York Times reported last week. The proposal calls for the National Park Service (NPS) to transfer a small parcel of land inside the park to the real estate private equity firm Kingsbarn Realty Capital, so it can build a road and access the park more conveniently from two 40-acre parcels it wants to develop for visitor lodging. Kingsbarn would purchase land of equivalent value and transfer it to the Park Service in exchange for the land, said the documents submitted to Congress earlier this year. The road would give any future lodging property extraordinary private access to the park. The property currently sits around ten miles away from a regular park entrance, and up to 90 minutes away from the park’s most popular scenic attractions. A direct entrance to the park from the property would significantly increase the value of the land and the commercial viability of any lodging built there. Continue Reading Article After Our Video Recommended Fodor’s Video NOTUS, a digital news outlet that originally broke the story, also reported that NPS officials, speaking under the condition of anonymity, said that the top political appointees at the Department of the Interior had instructed them to work with the developer as a top priority. Previous developers have also attempted to have a road built from the property, but Interior under the Bush, Obama, and Biden administrations all declined the request. Reports of the plan drew swift condemnation from California’s two Senators, former park officials, and the National Parks Conservation Association, a hundred-year-old nonpartisan advocacy group for US national parks. “The Trump administration’s attempts to dismantle America’s conservation legacy are now taking aim at Yosemite with this secretive, backroom deal that would turn over Park Service land to a private developer. This is an attack on the American people that own this national park. It would also be unlawful, and a court previously rejected a road development proposal,” said Mark Rose, senior Sierra Nevada program manager for National Parks Conservation Association in a statement provided to Fodor’s. “The National Park Service needs to get back to prioritizing conservation, not helping bulldoze land, cut down trees, threaten Yosemite’s wildlife and increase wildfire risks,” Rose added.A spokesperson for the Interior Department, the parent agency of the Park Service, said in a statement to The New York Times that the proposal is still in the initial stages. “Any land exchange or access proposal involving National Park Service lands would be subject to all applicable federal laws, regulations and departmental policies, including required environmental review and public notification processes,” the spokesperson said.Both of California’s senators told The New York Times they opposed the proposal and were working on the Senate Appropriations Committee to block it. “This is the most corrupt administration in history,” Senator Alex Padilla (D-California) said in a statement to The New York Times. “The Land and Water Conservation Fund exists to acquire land and interests in land in order to safeguard natural areas, water resources and cultural heritage—and to provide recreation opportunities for all Americans.”The proposal was absent from a list of endorsed projects Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) and Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon), the chair and ranking member of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee, sent to Interior with oversight of the Land and Water Conservation Fund earlier this year. An order to swap the land is almost certain to face legal challenges if it becomes final. It’s been a difficult year for the country’s national parks, with reports of understaffing, overcrowding, and alternately of reduced visitation.