From the Letters to National Geographic, September 2000

I find the first comment interesting in that it doesn't take into account the amount of tourist revenue the lighthouse move brought into the area or the amount it brings in every year.

As far as national parks, I find it unbelievable that they charge so little for a one week stay. I was at Bryce Canyon in Utah a few years back and it was $5.00 per car for a whole week. If they charged more money and applied that money towards the upkeep and security of the parks, I don't think anyone would mind.

And it's not a pile of bricks!

Joanne

I'm not sure of what the actual dollar amounts for the move and for tourist revenues, but I am not sure they matter.

It's always going to be a problem deciding how the meafer dollar allotted to national historic treasures are used. Some will believe none should be spent on old worthless things. They think he money should be spent on the living, not the dead.

Then there is the divide between those who believe our heritage should be preserved, but disagree on which aspect of it should be done first. Both Yellowstone, and other natural treasures are important and it is a crime that they are not afforred the money's needed to maintain them.

I agree that the fees charged should be raised so as to provide more for maintaining and improving them. But, this is a difficult task also. you don't want to price out the people who cannot afford any other vaction and desreve as much of a chance to use our country's resources.

If it sounds like I've run around in circles, it's because I have. We as a group plkace Lighthouses high or highest on the list for the meager monies available. Others would not place them so high. i feel sory for those who have to decide which projects are funded and which ones are not.

After saying all that, I do feel it was a good use of the meager funds available for landmark preservation to save Cape Hatteras. It's a wel known symbol of our country, even outside of Lighthouse Wackos. I just hope we would not demean others vested interests. They are not "wrong" and we are not " righr" we just love different things.

Dennis

I guess its all in how one looks at "appropriations". Considering the fact that the Federal Government has allowed hundreds of lights, some considered national landmarks, to fall in disrepair and final distruction, I don't think that $12,000,000 should be considered unreasonable or unfair. Afterall, the National Academy of Sciences recommended as far back as 1987 that the only true option was to relocate CH. Then it took 11 years to get the funding from Congress. I guess when you look at the CH "appropriation" in one fiscal year, its alot of money.....but....when you consider how much the feds have spent on lighthouses preservation over the past, say, 30 years.....its a rather small amount when pro-rated out.

The cost to move Cape Hatteras seems such a minimal amount compare to the government wasteful spending on projects as:

1. Millions of dollars were spent to find out if drunken fish are more agressive than sober fish.

2. $20,000 spend to construct a 800 foot limestone replica of the Great Wall of China in Bedford, IN.

3. $6,000 spent to prepare a 17-page document that told the federal government how to by a bottle of Worcestershire sauce.

4. The EPA spent $1.2 million to preserve a Trenton NJ sewer as a historical momument.

5. $219,592 spent to develop a curriculum to teach college students how to watch television.

6. $25,000 grant to study why people cheat, lie and act rudely on local Virginia tennis courts.

7. 64 Navy planes used to fly 1334 officers to the Hilton Hotel in Las Vegas for a reunion of the Tailhook Association.

8. $2 million spent on a prototype police patrol car that was never completed.

9. $80 million Medicade payments to psychiatrist for unscheduled, coincidental meetings with patients who were attending basketball games.

10. $28,600 to study how to spend another $250,000 for a good surfing beach in Honolulu.

Who do you think got the most for their money - the National Parks Systems or one of these ten.

Kay

Perhaps a better question would be, "What would the cost have been had the Hatteras lighthouse not been moved?"

------------------
-Art

I've got to hear more about #4, Kay.

Come on now Dennis,did you have anything to do with #4?LOL


Terry

...not to mention what NASA wastes in space trying to determine if we can inhabit another planet...we've got enough problems right here on Earth without spreading them across the galaxy.

Rock, I must disagree with you on the other planets issue. The only way to save the human race in the long run is if we are inhabiting more than one planet. In the even longer run we must inhabit planets in more than just our one Solar system. As the old saying goes “Don’t keep all of your eggs, in one basket.” Right now that is exactly what the human race is doing. If we can colonize other planets, and we can turn “dead” planets, like Mars, into Earth like planets, then we MUST do this. Our species is the first species capable of wiping out this planet on it’s on, but we are also the first species, which could take ourselves and other species to the stars. IMHO, not enough is being spent on Space Exploration, and the technology needed to get us there.



[This message has been edited by Weasel58 (edited 11-01-2000).]

Let's not forget Planet Fresnel which is already occupied by one or more WACKOs.

I had nothing to do with it. I do remember reading about it.

The sewer system in Trenton is one of the oldest in the nation. It had a particular intersection that was uncommon and was preserved when a dig was being done to move the lines to make way for a road being put thru.

There are also many secret tunnels from a number of basements in that area of Trenton leading towards the river. There is some speculation that some had some connection to the Underground Railway and that others were part of a series of tunnels built by Napoleon's brother when he lived in the area.

Dennis

Quite frankly, Weasel58, I don't know what you're talking about...if the good Lord had intended us to live on more than just this one planet, He would have made it inhabitable in the first place...

[This message has been edited by Rock (edited 11-02-2000).]

Napoleon's brother lived in Jersey? We have a landfill down here that supposedly has trash from the homes of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. I think I'll apply for a federal grant "for further study".....(jk)

Rock, One question, Have you ever been in an airplane? Cause the old saying goes, "If the "Good Lord" wanted us to fly, we would have had wings. What I am talking about is the fact that someday, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but someday an astroid large anough to wipe out the human race WILL hit this planet.
And for John, I don't thank Planet Fresnel, will be large enough for all of us to escape too.


[This message has been edited by Weasel58 (edited 11-02-2000).]