July 8, 1990 |
Almost by chance last summer, I stumbled on a vast and almost empty mountainscape in central Idaho called the Sawtooth National Recreation Area. A curious name, I thought, and I was almost as intrigued by it as by the scenic beauty around me. The "Sawtooth" part I understood. In front of my eyes rose a long ridge of high, jagged peaks looking like the teeth of a saw. What puzzled me was the designation "national recreation area." What did it mean?
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
August 15, 1993
The 50,000-member Sierra Club Angeles Chapter and other park supporters have long been working diligently in Washington to ensure congressional support for funds for Paramount Ranch in the Santa Monica Mountains. The Senate allocation of funds on July 27 to help purchase the beautiful and historic 314-acre Paramount Ranch was in fact done at the request and urging of park supporters--not Soka University, although Soka developers took credit for it. Soka developers, the proponents of a 2-million-square-foot, multimillion-dollar massive development in the heart of the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, certainly are not supportive of the Sierra Club Angeles Chapter and longstanding efforts of environmentalists to protect vital parklands in the Santa Monica Mountains.
June 19, 1988
The prospects for making long-needed additions to the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation area look brighter today than they have in several years. California voters have approved the park bond issue that earmarks $30 million to buy land in the mountains. On the day after that vote a key House subcommittee recommended that next year's federal budget include $13 million for parkland in the mountains.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
February 6, 1992 |
A national coalition of environmental groups Wednesday called on Congress to spend $1.23 billion next year to expand the nation's public parks and wild lands, and urged more funding for the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area--$30 million--than for any other park. In an annual report aimed at influencing budget deliberations, The Wilderness Society and 26 other groups asked lawmakers to provide $1.
CALIFORNIA | LOCAL
April 14, 1996
Re "Questions Raised Over Campus Seizure Efforts," March 27. Unanswered questions department: Why were Zev Yaroslavsky and Tony Beilenson in such a hurry to broker this deal (10 days)? When Yaroslavsky heard that the conservancy had spent [money] earmarked for the Soka condemnation, why did he not immediately demand an independent audit of the conservancy and the MRCA [Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority]? How much of the millions of public funds received by the conservancy has been spent to buy land in the Santa Monica Mountains and how much has been spent on developers, staff, consultants, lawyers and land outside the National Recreation Area?
June 4, 1993 |
After more than five years of intense and ever-shifting negotiations, officials said Thursday that the National Park Service is purchasing Bob Hope's 2,308-acre Jordan Ranch in the Simi Hills east of Thousand Oaks. The $16.7-million acquisition represents a milestone for the Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, a unit of the National Park Service that is stitching together a network of mountain parks and trails in Ventura and Los Angeles counties.
June 5, 2009
Re "The cost of closing parks" Editorial, June 3 Good editorial, and I completely agree, but I think you miss the point: The grand Republican strategy is to "starve the beast" (shrink government to the point where it can no longer function), privatize the profitable parts of the public domain and dump the unprofitable parts, like social programs. If our state parks become weedy, vandalized messes, it will only facilitate their eventual sale at bargain-basement prices to private investors.
June 24, 1990
Siegfrid Othmer's answers in the Point/Counterpoint interview (Times, June 3), opposing the so-called land swap to obtain public ownership of 5,700 acres of superb parkland now owned by Bob Hope, are well argued. The only difficulty is that his arguments, which focus on blocking development of Jordan Ranch by the Hope interests, are based on seriously flawed premises. I find it curious that The Times chose a representative of the proposed developer of Jordan Ranch as the proponent of public acquisition of the 5,700 acres, rather than a member of one of the well-established environmental organizations that support the acquisition, such as the Sierra Club, the Santa Monica Mountains Trails Council, the Rancho Simi Parks and Recreation District, Equestrian Trails Inc. It is not surprising, on the other hand, that Mr. Othmer represented the opposing position, since he is the spokesperson for the primary group opposing acquisition, an ad hoc group whose focus is almost exclusively on Jordan Ranch rather than on the broader picture.