Land Sale of The Century

• Share

(9 of 10)

At the same time, however, who is to say that a scenic view is worth more than housing for the elderly? The environmental movement has performed a valuable function during the past two decades, making Americans aware of the problems of pollution and lobbying for cleaner air and water. But the movement has also indulged in some knee-jerk opposition to almost any change, tying up some construction projects with endless legal maneuverings, or seizing upon spurious excuses to stymie others. It delayed the Tellico Dam for years, for example, only to discover that the tiny fish called the snail darter lived nicely elsewhere with no help from man. In Maine, construction of the Dickey-Lincoln Dam was almost held up because of environmentalists' concern for a plant called the Furbish lousewort.

Environmentalists must remember that the areas they seek to preserve intact are often of interest to only a relatively small segment of the public. America's land belongs just as much to those who want fuel, timber and highways as it does to those who want unspoiled mountains and virgin forests.

It is clear that land-use policy in the U.S. must be brought into line with changing conditions. What was an appropriate way for the nation to use land a century ago—or for that matter, a decade ago—may not be appropriate today. Many present holdings may be unnecessary. No one would seriously argue that 18 miles of the western shore of Chesapeake Bay, located in one of the country's most populated corridors, should be a military reservation and gunnery range. But that is where Aberdeen Proving Ground and Edgewood Arsenal are. Nor in 1982 is it logical for the Government to own 17 miles of invaluable Southern California coastline between Los Angeles and San Diego. Surely there are more appropriate places to teach Marines to wade ashore than at Camp Pendleton. Is the Government the most logical owner of Governors Island, a beautiful 173 acres at the entrance to New York harbor? The days when a fort could defend a harbor vanished many a war ago.

What is needed is a cool and rational balancing between competing interests. The Government should weigh each proposed sale to determine if the property is in fact surplus, and whether it might be put to better use. Decisions should be made on a parcel-by-parcel basis, with time for all interested parties, from environmentalists to would-be buyers, to make their views heard. Such a policy would slow the Administration's attempts to reduce the Government's holdings. It would probably cost the country a few tons of coal, some board feet of timber. But it would reassure Americans that their land is not being squandered or abused. The nation's land is too valuable to be peddled off precipitately. Managing and preserving it is, as Historian Bernard De Voto wrote three decades ago, the only Government responsibility besides atomic energy in which a mistake made today cannot be corrected tomorrow.

His warning is well founded. The U.S. should not hoard land; to do so in a changing nation does not serve the society's best interests. But it should heed the lesson of the biblical Esau and not sell America's birthright for "a mess of pottage." Esau cared little for his birthright. Future generations of Americans may be more interested in theirs.

— By Peter Staler.