https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/aug/28/yosemite-national-park-private-developer

This should go over well.

What is he giving to Ukraine? China?

BigRobSA said:

---

Good, now sell the other 99.99% and put it towards the debt he, and other libs, are building up for us.

---

Trump is a lib? Does that mean his antics own…himself? Like, a self own even?

Jarrin Jay said:

---

Oh no, a 1/4 mile parcel out of 1200 square miles. The horror.

Anyway….

---

NM

Give or sell, there is a difference.

FlyRod said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

Good, now sell the other 99.99% and put it towards the debt he, and other libs, are building up for us.

---

Trump is a lib? Does that mean his antics own…himself? Like, a self own even?

---

Did that make sense to you, or sound good when you typed it?

Now open it up for drilling!

FlyRod said:

---

BigRobSA said:

---

Good, now sell the other 99.99% and put it towards the debt he, and other libs, are building up for us.

---

Trump is a lib?

---

Yes. Of course. Just not a progressive one.

Why? For the non existent oil reserves?

Why not just an easement?

I didn't read past first paragraph. If I go to Yosemite, I would want to stay at a nice place. I've never stayed in government accommodations that I care to stay at again.

Rapier108 said:

---

As usual, the Guardian twists everything around, especially the headline, to get the lefties all stirred up over nothing.

They've been a lying, leftist rag forever.

---

The Guardian is straight up Karl lovers, every single one of them.

Sounds like someone with connections is using their influence to make land they purchased on the cheap into a viable resort. On the other hand, it doesn't sound like the parcel in question was a particular important or scenic part of the national park.

On the subject of national parks. I started visiting national parks about twenty years ago and have loved seeing them. Just like Ron Swanson, the national parks are my favorite part of the federal government.

That being said, I'm glad I've crossed most of them off my bucket list. It sounds like they have turned into complete zoos, and I don't know if I would enjoy them as much now. I've hit most of the big ones already (23 of 63), but I've always felt like I needed to return to Yellowstone for a longer visit.

Over 200 miles of paved road already in the park, and people are pissing their skinny jeans over .25 extra miles.

TTTTTRRRRRUUUUMMMMMPPPPPPP!!!!!!!!!!!
Orange man bad

It's being given to a developer who owns 83 acres on the other side of the park so that future development can be privately accessed through and directly from the park. If I had to guess it's going to be a resort that's can then pump more traffic and tourism into the park.

It'll increase the value of that parcel dramatically. So, what are we getting for it and what good does it do the public/taxpayers to make the deal vs the developers? Is the value one sided or is there mutual benefit?

So two senators reached out to The Guardian to misrepresent a simple land swap that allows for development of private land OUTSIDE the park by giving land for an access road and in turn acquiring land at no cost to taxpayer to replace land for road.

Some may say why not just allow the road - and I assume the NPS does not want to have the maintenance and responsibility for the road.

This is nothing more than normal, rationale business turned into Orange Man Hitler because Dems are desperate.

FROM THE ARTICLE:

I read it as developer gets land for road and Yosemite, despite what the Guardian says - Yosemite is not the oldest NP, gets a plot of land of equal value. Assuming the replacement parcel is suitable and meets the requirements, what is the issue?

It's to create a private road to an OUTSIDE development.

But there's also no named sources..

With the excellent reporting of the Guardian, we are missing details. It reads as though, and logic would indicate, it is to "cut-through" a portion of the park to allow for quicker access to the park entrance. Since they won't be putting in their own NPS guard shack, then it would seem the road goes "through" the park but never "into" the park.

Yellowstone has this between Big Sky and West Yellowstone and Jackson Hole has this for the road from Jackson to the north.

Not exactly the same as those are highways, but similar concept.

If that's not the case, then who knows what they are up to.

Also, they named one congressman and quoted him and a spokes per DoI. Would seem to confirm there is a proposed transaction.

Wake me up when we auction off a few million acres of federal land that takes more to maintain and manage than it brings in.

Hank the Grifter said:

---

TRD-Ferguson said:

---

Once the camel's nose gets under the tent the rest is soon to follow. It's doesn't matter how little it is. It matters that it's under the tent.

Sort of like "just the tip".

---

Remember that next time you hear the term "common sense gun control"..

---

Like with banning bump stocks?

BigRobSA said:

---

Good, now sell the other 99.99% and put it towards the debt he, and other libs, are building up for us.

---

Trump is also outstanding at building debt. Evidently you have not been paying attention.

Quote:

---

Administration officials have proposed that the park service give up the land in exchange for equally valuable land elsewhere in California, the outlet reported. The interior department's top political leaders support the proposal, according to sources cited by Notus, and the situation has created tension inside the park service.

---

While we are at it, I'd love to have some lumber and logs from a giant sequoia to make cool furniture, a mantle, shelving, and more stuff from.

Can we sell a few trees Libs?

torrid said:

---

Sounds like someone with connections is using their influence to make land they purchased on the cheap into a viable resort. On the other hand, it doesn't sound like the parcel in question was a particular important or scenic part of the national park.

---

That's rare, the government not getting hosed in a public/ private land trade. Colorado gets hosed a lot in these type of deals...They seem to always fall for the rich billionare's pitch of "Give me 2000 acres of prime public hunting land next to my main ranch, and I'll trade you my other crappy, rocky steep, roadless ranch that's landlocked with no access or water, it could be a migration route for grizzly bears if we had any."