I work for the NPS, and this issue is one that comes up continually. As NPS stewards, it's hard to balance the need for protection against the desire to visit and use the lands, be it for passive recreation to outright construction and development. Ultimately, it boils down to politics, and that's a shame, albeit a reality.

I think one of the hardest challenges for park service planners it the development adjacent to federal lands. Unless there is a very clear nexus between such development and potential degradation of federal lands, it's an activity that's all but impossible to stop.

One case in point is Blue Ridge Parkway in North Carolina. The parkway was acquired for its scenic beauty. Yet, that scenery is primarily beyond the park boundaries. Politics, education, and yes, sometimes outright restrictions are required to protect what was set aside by Congress in the first place to protect.

Finding the solution is the challenge. Working with local entities, enviromental groups, and even developers, working to get all on board to understand that it's in EVERYONE'S best interest to protect the lands is the challenge. But, given the amounts of money and land values adjacent to federal lands, the pressure to build is huge. It's all but impossible to stop unless local and state governments are will to put up the money to either buy the land in fee, or just purchase conservation easements.

I dunno. I guess, ultimately, I don't understand the greed mentality of maximizing profits over all other issues. Why can't just *some* profits, maybe, be enough? Why does maximum profits become the end all/be all goal of developers? Generally, it gives me a headache and makes me wanna puke. There. I said it.