Hacker News Reader

Comment by rtp4me | Hacker News Reader

While I recognize these are federal lands, I wonder if the states will pick up the slack to keep the parks open. In the end, Trump wants the states to do more with less federal government involvement, thus, I am not surprised at the force reduction. And, the layoffs seem to be happening for a while now (way before Trump).

View on HN

States can’t just take over Federal land. That’s like saying Microsoft is going to step in and keep Google Hangouts running.

Yes, I understand. But, why can’t states help provide funding for the people who take care of the land? The states wouldn’t take over the land, just help maintain it. Volunteers, non-profits, etc could certainly help out here.

The feds aren't just going to let the land sit unbothered. They're going to sell it off and/or allow resource extraction. Nothing a non-profit can prevent.

So Bill says “We’re not taking over Hangouts, we’ll just fund enough FTEs to take care of it.” Think Sundar says yes?

> if the states will pick up the slack to keep the parks open

maybe so, but then states have to raise taxes to pay for it

the fed gov gets to say "look at all the money we saved you"!! (actually they're putting the savings to border security, but anyway), but in the end taxpayers don't actually pay any less

that's besides the fact that these are federal lands, not state lands; and that centralized management is generally more cost effective

Reply on news.ycombinator.com