Pawlenty sees narrowing window for new park near Lake Vermillion

Exactly why do we need another state park? There are only about 75 of them now. The state and other government bodies buys up more and more land. Check to see how much land the DNR controls, how about county parks, city parks and not to mention school districts.
Soon the state agencies and federal agencies will own it all ... I guess that is what they want, more control over you and I. Won't have to worry about property rights then.

O Pressed wrote:

Exactly why do we need another state park? There are only about 75 of them now. The state and other government bodies buys up more and more land. Check to see how much land the DNR controls, how about county parks, city parks and not to mention school districts.
Soon the state agencies and federal agencies will own it all ... I guess that is what they want, more control over you and I. Won't have to worry about property rights then.

exactly why do we need more lake front "homes" and development around a beautiful lake? Used to be people had more aesthetic sense when they built on water and nestled themselves into the surroundings. Now it's all about their 'presentation' as their monolithic behmoth glass walls belch all over the shoreline - all for THEIR view. What about OUR view from the water or other side of the lake?

Exactly how would we (the State of Minnesota) pay for it, Governor No? With the old credit card (bonding)? I don't think so. It's already maxed out with your irresponsible spending.

O Pressed wrote:

Exactly why do we need another state park? There are only about 75 of them now. The state and other government bodies buys up more and more land. Check to see how much land the DNR controls, how about county parks, city parks and not to mention school districts.
Soon the state agencies and federal agencies will own it all ... I guess that is what they want, more control over you and I. Won't have to worry about property rights then.

I'd rather have parks than developments any day.

Why can't the state work on buying the land to protect it without spending all the money on developing another state park?
Why can't there be building restrictions on what kind of structure can be built on the land(no mcmansions)
any state park money should be put towards current state parks that are already operating on thin ice.