Guest Column: Chipping Away At The National Park Service Mission One Park At A Time

Editor's note: Joan Anzelmo had a long and distinquished career with the National Park Service, one that included tenure as superintendent of Colorado National Monument. Among the issues she had to grapple with during her stint at the monument was whether to allow a professional bike race to pass through the monument. She declined the request for reasons outlined in the National Park Service's Management Policies. When the Park Service's Intermountain Region last week announced that it would take a new approach to deciding what activities were appropriate in Colorado National Monument, she was understandably puzzled because of how it could affect the bike race. She explains why in the following guest column.

Beginning in December 2010, and most recently on August 14, 2012, the National Park Service has repeatedly told the Grand Junction Local Organizing Committee (GJLOC) for the USA Pro Challenge that it cannot utilize Colorado National Monument and its Rim Rock Drive, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, for a stage of the USA Pro Challenge bike race.

So you can imagine my surprise when on Friday, November 9, the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel, whose publisher is on the GJLOC, ran an exclusive story about a process the Park Service would implement when considering appropriate activities in the monument, including a reconsideration of the professional bike race. The article included quotes from Colorado Gov. Hickenlooper, GJLOC member John Hopkins, NPS Intermountain Regional Director John Wessels, and monument Superintendent Lisa Eckert.

Public to get a say on monument

Feds seek local input on activities inside the park

The local organizing committee that sought to conduct a leg of the USA Pro Challenge bicycle race along the 23 miles of Rim Rock Drive saw the Park Service announcement as an opening.

“It’s a good opportunity to more fully explore how we might make available the type of event we’ve been talking about,” said John Hopkins, chairman of the local organizing committee, calling it a “very positive development” for the community in general.

Gov. John Hickenlooper called the announcement a step in the right direction that will “ensure that the public has input when it comes to protecting and enjoying this national crown jewel. We appreciate the National Park Service’s interest in having an open and honest dialogue with the community about activities in the monument.”

Later that same day, the Park Service issued a news release that announced a process to begin in January that would look at all manner of activities, events, and commercial services to decide which would be appropriate for the monument. The subsequent news stories and editorials said the Park Service would invite the community to help the agency determine what should be permitted and what should not, whether weddings, family reunions, special events, rock climbing, and even the professional bike race. That's a rather unnecessary and pricey process to my way of thinking when specific regulations and policy already exist to evaluate and determine what is appropriate or not.

Are you scratching your head yet? I certainly have been.

The Bike Race Has Been Reviewed Before

The National Park Service went through a massive and expensive national public involvement process in 2005 and 2006 to update its Management Policies, the guiding field manual for how to manage the parks. The result of that long and costly process was the updated 2006 Management Policies that give greater weight to resource protection, even over visitor services.

These policies flow from the NPS Organic Act. Consequently, Park Service superintendents are specifically directed to follow these policies and to protect park resources first and foremost. Complementing the 2006 NPS Management Policies are the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and other agency directives and guidelines.

When I served as superintendent at Colorado National Monument and in other posts ranging from Yellowstone and Grand Teton national parks to the Director’s Office in Washington, D.C., I always followed Park Service policy to guide my decisions and all of my public communications. No more so than when I evaluated the first proposal from the GJLOC requesting to hold a stage of the USA Pro Challenge in Colorado National Monument.

The policies and Code of Federal Regulations were clear on how I would evaluate and decide this request. However, I made sure to consult with my supervisor, Regional Director John Wessels, various Interior Department solicitors, fellow Park Service superintendents, staff in the agency's Office of Policy as well as the special permits staff, and eventually with Park Service Director Jon Jarvis.

Despite the nasty assault I received in the community and the non-stop intense political pressure from Gov. Hickenlooper and many elected officials, including U.S. Rep. Scott Tipton and U.S. Sen. Mark Udall, to force the race, it was reassuring and Park Service mission-affirming to have both Regional Director Wessels and Director Jarvis emphatically support the decision I made not to permit the stage of the USA Pro Challenge inside of Colorado National Monument.

It was reaffirmed on several additional occasions while I was still at Colorado National Monument and after I retired. Most recently, on August 14, 2012, Regional Director Wessels in a letter to the GJLOC informed them that the Park Service would not permit the professional bike race in Colorado National Monument. This was the third time that Regional Director Wessels informed the GJLOC why the Park Service would not permit the pro bike race. Subsequently, members of the GJLOC confirmed to the news media an additional meeting with RD Wessels and Secretary Salazar during September on the subject of the race.

Surprising Change Of Heart?

So Friday’s news as reported initially by the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel and later by the Denver Post, and stories in Greenwire, as well as editorials in both the Daily Sentinel and the Denver Post were shocking. Again elected officials were quoted as praising the Park Service for its new decision-making process regarding the pro bike race with headlines stating “Monumental Change of Heart” and “NPS Change of Policy.

Adding to the chorus of those stating the Park Service would re-evaluate the pro bike race was the Intermountain Region’s spokesperson and associate regional director, Rick Frost. In a Greenwire story on Tuesday, November 13, Mr. Frost was quoted as saying:


"I think people are making too much of the race itself," said Rick Frost, associate regional director of communications for NPS's Intermountain Region in Denver. "Nothing about what we're doing here represents a policy change. This is an effort to engage the public, and to help them understand the process by which special-use permits are granted. We want to work with them to help them understand the things we can and cannot do and to show them where there's flexibility to do things and where there's not." However, Frost said all special-use activities will be up for discussion, including ongoing proposals to run a segment of the bike race through part of the monument.

Perhaps if Rick Frost had faced the unrelenting pressures I faced daily as park superintendent, including personal threats and attempts to get me fired during the protracted race debate, he would never say, “I think people are making too much of the race itself” or so badly confound the NPS message on its policy which expressly prohibits professional sporting events inside the nation’s national parks and monuments.

I remain hopeful that Director Jarvis, who has faithfully carried out the National Park Service mission throughout every step of his field-oriented career, will make the Park Service position crystal clear on this issue for Colorado National Monument and for all other units of the National Park System as a tangible manifestation of the agency’s Call to Action."

Comments

I was visiting Colorado National Monument on the Saturday in September when Ken Salazar was there to discuss the race with park staff and race organizers. Originally, there had been a sort of open invitation to the public to attend the meeting in the park's amphitheater. But shortly before it was supposed to happen, the public part of it was abruptly cancelled due to "scheduling confilcts." (Which, in my experience seems to be officialspeak for "We don't want no protesting or unpleasant incidents.") The meeting was moved to the historic stone house near the visitor center.

It was easy to see what kinds of impacts a major bike race would have on the park. The road is narrow and winds along the edges of sheer cliff in many places. Biking is a very popular activity there, and I came upon a bunch of them while driving along the rim drive. Even though there were no more than two or three cyclists in each group I met, it was sometimes simply not possible to pass them safely. I had to slow down to bike speed and wait for a safe stretch. But in a place as spectacularly scenic as COLO, that wasn't a problem.

However, it was obvious that should a large-scale race be held there, normal visitor traffic would be virtually impossible. It also was not hard to imagine other serious possibilities. Where the road hugs the edge of cliffs, low rock walls line the road. I can imagine an excited race watcher -- particularly a child -- trying to stand on one of those walls for a better view and triggering a call to the park's Search & Rescue crew. It would certainly be necessary for the park road to be closed to other visitors while the race was held. Thus, would a family from far away who had stopped to see the place have to be turned away? What about littering and the extra loads placed on park maintenance?

I talked with a few people in Fruita and Grand Junction -- mainly clerks in a couple of stores -- and found local opinions to be somewhat divided. About half supported the race and the other half either didn't care or felt there were plenty of other places in the vicinity where a race could be held albeit with much less spectacular scenery along the way.

Either way, this is a prime example of the kinds of extreme political pressures that pound continually on park superintendents, regional directors and even those who inhabit the hallowed halls of Interior in D.C. One thing we can always be assured of in situations like these is the fact that somewhere behind it, someone stands to receive a financial reward from the proposed activity.

National Parks units are public land and used for a multitude of public purposes. I'm familiar with the park and some of the problems that might occur from a bike event but the fact that it was previously analyzed and rejected should not necessarily stand for all time. Parks change, management changes, public pressures change. The politics of all this is part of the game.

The message I got from the article is that Supt. Anzelmo is unhappy that her decision might not stand. She is still wounded by the unnecessary and uncivil comments she received during the planning process.

If current management or politics requires a new analysis so be it.... Maybe the event will be rejected again, maybe they'll find a way to hold it in conjunction with other public use. Current NPS 'policy' is not sacrosanct and the fact that the process was expensive isn't pertinent to the issue. Everything the NPS does is expensive.

Let the analysis begin!

In Big Bend NP the NPS is building a new trail in previously undisturbed country. It was planned as a mountain bike trail, but changed to a hiking trail after failing to go through the proper regulatory hoops. I just read that New River Gorge is promoting new single track mountain bike trails. The NPS director has made it easier for park superintendents to permit mountain bikes on trails outside potential or designated wilderness and I will be surprised if the new superintendent at Big Bend does not open the new hking trail to mountain bikes when it is completed.. I complemented Joan Anzelmo on her decsion to stop a commercial bike race in Colorado NM and am dismayed that the NPS is opening the door to reverse that decision. The pressures by the recreation industry, including IMBA, are growing and I sympathize with those managers trying to hold the line against increasing commercialization of the national parks. The businesses that make money off of the parks are doing what comes naturally where money is involved. But those who value the parks for their intrinsic values have seemed to prevail in the past. If younger and future generations see the parks primarily as recreational assets and no longer see them as special places then so be it. But I am glad I lived most of my life when they were considered special with natural values the primary reason for their existence. National Parks are some of the few places in the country where hunting is not allowed along with the associated gunfire, where dog are not encountered on the trails or heard barking in the backcountry, and until recenty where visitors were not carrying guns openly or concealed. I think they sould also be places where mountain bikes on single track trails are not encountered. If they are no longer to be special places let private companies like Disney, or other government agencies manage them to achieve maximum profits for the recreation industry.

It would have been helpful if Ms Anzelmo would have explained what she thought the negative impacts of the race would have been.

The impacts of the proposed race have been highlighted quite a bit on the Traveler in our coverage of this issue.

* The Park Service's Management Policies state that a special event may be permitted “when there is a meaningful association between the park area and the event” and “when the event will contribute to visitor understanding of the park area.” The bike race didn't meet either of those provisions. Additionally, Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations that governs what occurs in all areas of the National Park System requires that the Park Service deny permits for events that are “conducted primarily for the material or financial benefit of a for-profit entity; or awards participants an appearance fee or prizes of more than nominal value…”

* Ms. Anzelmo, when superintendent, pointed out that to conduct a stage of the race through the monument she'd have to close Rim Rock Drive through the park for 12 hours, permit feed zones, support vehicles, and overheard air support. Imagine a visitor who drove across one, two, or three states to see the monument arriving to find the park closed for a bike race. She did, however, offer race organizers the option of a ceremonial lap of the monument without all the logistical support.

It also should be noted that Yosemite National Park officials in 2009 rejected a similar request to allow a bike race through the Yosemite Valley, citing the "disruption" the event would have caused for park visitors.

The title of this article "Chipping Away At The National Park Service Mission One Park At A Time" summarizes a key problem with allowing such events, and the cliche of the little boy with his finger in the dike, trying to hold back a flood, is appropriate.

Once you agree to close the main public access to a park for a whole day for a commercial bicycle event, where do you draw the line for other future events? How many days of effectively reserving use of a park for a commercial activity are too many? One, two ... a dozen?

Kurt's comment above sums up the bottom line: "Imagine a visitor who drove across one, two, or three states to see the monument arriving to find the park closed for a bike race." Imagine lots of visitors encountering similar situations in multiple parks throughout the year.

Allowing such events establishes a dangerous precedent that weakens the core values of all NPS sites.

I totally agree with Jim's summary. I can't help but picture the scene in the movie "Vacation" when they reach Walleyworld and John Candy says, "I'm sorry the park's closed, the moose out front should have told ya"

I don't know the area well enough to make a judgment call. That being said, I don't buy the slippery slope argument that if you allow one event, then you have to allow all of them. It sure sounds like Ms. Anselmo is pretty unhappy about her decision being potentially reversed, but times change, and new blood might see things differently. As long as the event does not impact negatively the park, other than obviously closing access for 12 hours, I really don't see how that conflicts with the NPS mission. The NPS has to adapt to the times, even if Ms. Anselmo won't.

I don't buy the driving across the country to find the park closed arguement compelling at all. The likelyhood of someone driving that distance solely for the purpose of seeing the Colorado Monument is extremely remote and to do so without checking into the Park website (which one would assume would note the closer) is even more remote. Its like saying Yellowstone should never close because someone might drive there.

Now if the rules specifically say no commercial events then thats the rules. Maybe the rules need changing but ignoring at one park while enforcing at others isn't appropriate.

I will note however MS Anzelmo's comments above made no reference to the rules you noted but instead talked of protecting the park resources. I didn't, and still don't see any threat to those.

Finally, I find it kind of funny that you would object to 1 family that might be disappointed the park was closed when hundreds will be coming to the park for the race.

But, Founding Fathers, don't you sense the bad logic in your last sentence? Those hundreds of people coming to the Monument for the bike race won't be coming to see the Monument; they will be coming to see professionals race on bikes. The Monument then is only the venue, and not the reason for visiting the area.

Rick


The Monument then is only the venue, and not the reason for visiting the area.


So what? Don't we want to encourage folks to come to our parks - especially ones that are under utilized. Isn't it possible they will come for both the race and the park? Might they come for the race, be awed by the park and become long standing park patrons? Might the millions that would be watching the race on TV see the park and be inspired to visit it and other parks - or make a donation to the park(s)? Seems to me that the parks could only come out winners.

That said - I respect that there are rules against such activities and until those rules are changed, the park management should not allow commerical activities. (BTW does that include running concessions?)

I think that concessions detract from the natural beauty of the park. Quick, let's close them!!! I don't quite get that absolutist, black and white, approach to the park. It seems that the bike race, and all its spectators, would only enhance the appeal of the park, and if anything would bring new potential users. Seems like a win win for the park and the race.

So, Zeb, let's bring bike racing to the monument, open up the Yellowstone and Firehole rivers in Yellowstone to canoes and kayaks, open up Glacier to snowmobiling, open up more areas in Arches to climbing, open up Badlands and Theodore Roosevelt to ORVs.

All those activities would bring more spectators, but I'm not sure it'd enhance the appeal of the parks, and I'm not sure they'd be there to appreciate the parks.

Why stop there? Fill Old Faithful with numbered rubber duckies, and give door prizes when she erupts.

Yeah, it that is ruductio ad absurdum. My point is that at some point there have to be lines drawn, and no line drawer ever satisfies everyone. This is a case in point. Life comes down to which side of a line one ends up on.

Yes - lines need to be drawn but not for the sake of drawing lines. If an activity has no real negative impact on the resources and could draw significant attention, interest and money to the park, why would you want to draw a line that precludes it - other than to just draw a line?

Ah, FF, there's that M word again. But would this money come to the park, or to others who stand to profit?

Kurt,

The slippery slope is a bad argument, and is based on good old fear. It wouldn't hurt to try, and see how it plays out. Change is not that bad.


But would this money come to the park, or to others who stand to profit?


Probably both. I don't have a problem with it coming to either. Do you have a problem with people making money?

Only if it causes harm in some way.

And what "harm" does it cause in this case?

Well, you haven't explained and gotten widespread agreement on that term "no real negative impact" you slipped in there. Just because you say something like that and no one immediately challenges you on it doesnt make it a fact any more than dropping a cowpie on the table makes it an eclair, just cause no one wants to handle it.

Ok Rick - Drop the cowpie. What harm does it cause?

I'm actually interested as well in understanding what's the harm to the park.

How about defining what benefits this might bring to the park?

Lee - so now one must bring benefits? What benefits do the other 1500 visitors a day bring to the Momument?

But if you want potential benefits - try the list I provided before:

"Isn't it possible they will come for both the race and the park? Might they come for the race, be awed by the park and become long standing park patrons? Might the millions that would be watching the race on TV see the park and be inspired to visit it and other parks - or make a donation to the park(s)? Seems to me that the parks could only come out winners.

Or could those benefits be trumped by negatives such as closing the park to other visitors for a day, litter, trampling of vegetation and biotic soil, safety concerns, increased maintenance costs, need for additional park staff to handle set-up and clean-up and a host of other potential problems?

Would it be another case of socialize the expenses and privatize the profits? Should my taxpayer dollars be spent to support something that is intended to put money in someone's pocket. (It is, after all, a professional race.) Or would we taxpayers be assured that this event would provide a profit for our park?

That's the point -- benefits and unbenefits (if there is such a word) are entirely in the eye of the beholder. That's what makes situations like this so emotionally charged and so difficult to adjudicate "fairly."

Ok, I've tracked down a letter Ms. Anzelmo wrote to detail the reasons why she declined to issue the requisite permit for the 2011 race in the park. Here are some of the details and impacts she pointed out in reaching her decision:

* The Park Service's Management Policies do not allow a park to permit an event that requires the closure of an area normally open to the public when that event is "conducted primarily for the material or financial benefit of a for-profit entity; or which awards participants an appearance fee or prizes of more than nominal value; or requires in park advertising or publicity (unless the event is co-sponsored by the Service) or; charges a separate public admission fee."

* "According to the proposal, there would be approximately 144 cyclists in 16 to 18 teams, approximately 49 support vehicles, potentially 16 feed zone support vehicles, a wide variety of support equipment, large number of race support personnel and volunteers, and it would require closing the Historic Rim Rock Drive to accommodate three full laps of this race stage potentially for up to six hours..."

* "According to the proposal, the historic overlooks along Historic Rim Rock Drive would also be needed to accommodate race support services, vehicles, and spectators. The proposal calls for helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft to be utilized for race television coverage and for race communictations."

* "The proposed race route would have the racers travel along the exceptionally narrow and precipitous Historic Rim Rock Drive, where crowds would likely be stacked up to view the racers and inadvertently trample native vegetation and fragile biological soil crust, accelerate rockfall along steep shoulder sections of the road, damage historic stone walls, disrupt flight patterns and nesting of birds of prey including golden eagles and peregrine falcons, disrupt desert bighorn sheep mating behavior, and litter the route and adjacent canyon terrain with paper, plastic, food and beverage debris."

* "During the month of August (when the race was proposed--ed.) Colorado National Monument receives as many as 3,000 visitors daily, making it one of the most heavily visited months of the year. The proposed race would displace park visitors including commercial bus tour groups which average 3 or 4 per day with upwards of 30-50 passengers per coach, displace Glade Park residents and Glade Park commercial vehicles that use Historic Rim Rock Drive as their primary right-of-way access, disrupt visitor services, displace interpretive programs and disrupt the overall operations of Colorado National Monument and its cooperating association's retail store located in the visitor center."

Founding Fathers, these are concrete impacts. The benefits you allude to are speculative, highly so.

How would money come to the park? I can see money leaving the park in terms of the personnel costs involved to manage the event, costs which I would guess already have grown quite substantial even without the race in terms of the time the superintendent(s) and officials in the Intermountain Region Office have devoted to this matter in recent years, not to mention other personnel. And then there's the lost cost of entrance fees the park normally would collect from those 3000 or so visitors it typically sees on an August day.

Beyond that, I've been involved with and attended quite a few events, ranging from World Cup ski races to small-town bike races, and the impacts brought by traffic, people, concessions, and vehicles are quite substantial in landscapes much flatter and more spread out than those you find in Colorado National Monument. To say there wouldn't be impacts is truly viewing the world through rose-colored glasses.

Oh for God's sake, just tell them NO! Its not like there isn't any other place in America to go race your bike. For them to put forth the proposal in the first place is bold, arrogant, and self-serving, just for starters. They think they are owed this, deserve this, and will keep nagging until they get it, just as all spoiled children do. Maybe Ms Anzelmo isn't there anymore, but her points as listed by Kurk still exist, and ought to stop this foolishness in their track. If anyone in the Park Service, regardless of their level, is still considering a yes to this atrocity, fire them, for they do not have the welfare of the parks in their mind or in their heart.

You people sure get worked up..... the news release sez what exactly angers most of you..."public to get a say on monument".

Sure, there are negative impacts from an event like this. Just like there are from the 3,000 people a day who visit in August. Negative Impacts can be mitigated. Positive impacts will also come from an event like this. One of you has stated the 'worst case' situation.... people everywhere walking on the ground, lining the raceway, helicopters, caravans of support vehicles! Litter! Compacted soil! Another one says what about Yellowstone, Yosemite? The hordes will destroy all we love!

Baloney.

The park is public. The public pays for it. The public has a right to ask for uses other than what the NPS has magnanimously allowed in the past. Currently commercial tour buses traverse this and other parks daily. Concessionaires operate within many parks making money for themselves and the NPS. Helicopters fly over parks shuttling tourists. Snowmobiles tour in winter. This bike race is no more than that. A single day, some disruption of what is normal. If allowed, the event organizers should be required to pay for costs of the event..The park gets a lot of unusual exposure. More people become interested in the spectacular scenery and plan to visit.... Live goes on....

The National Park Service and the fabulous sites it oversees is nothing without the visitation of an adoring public. Public use should be encouraged, not strangled in the crib....


To say there wouldn't be impacts is truly viewing the world through rose-colored glasses.


Other than the issue of "trampling vegetation" and the concurrent concerns in that paragraph - I don't really see anything that is particularly negative - certainly not to the long term protection of the resources. And I would claim the "trampling vegetation" is as (if not more) speculative than my positives.

Can you show where such damage occurred at prior venues? Say Independence Pass, a similarly "sensitive" area, were one of the legs was held last year?

This exchange of opinions is a fine illustration of why people like Joan Anzlemo are needed. Someone needs to try to referee between various widely separated opinions and interests, weigh them against things like the NPS management guidelines, laws, and other requirements and then make a decision. No matter what the decision is, it's almost a certainty that there will be some awfully upset people.

We are a nation of wide divergency and we see that clearly in postings here.

It remains to be seen where all this dust will finally settle. But when it does, I hope we will all have the graciousness to accept it and then move forward as fellow Americans. If we could put hurt feelings aside, accept the decsion (until we can work to change it in a civilized manner), roll up our sleeves and make it all work our country would be much better off.

The objection is VERY valid, as it happened to me. I had travelled across the continent from my home in Missouri with a short opportunity to see Olympic National Park, specifically the Hoh Rain Forest. I had a one day window to be there, I would have liked more, but that's the way life is. Upon arrival, we were told we couldn't go to Hoh as the road was closed to film a commercial for a car company! A commercial enterprise, to make profit for Honda (I think it was Honda) denied me the possibly once in a lifetime chance to see the Hoh Rainforest.

The arguement that an area of a national park, any national park, should EVER be closed to the public, for the benefit of a commercial enterprise is VERY valid.

Sorry, Ranger Paul - the Hoh is magnificent. And I agree with you.

Ranger - sorry you weren't more diligent in planning your trip and that were weren't patient enough to wait 24 hrs for your once in a lifetime experience.

Ah, yes. Once again we see the attitude of Tough Luck, Buddy. I got mine and I'm gonna keep it let's see you just try to get yours.

Is that the new American Dream?

Lee, that was always been the American dream. Hard work, creativity and luck allowed you to be successful. That is the principle that made this nation the greatest ever, not "I'm entitled to it, give it to me"

I'm not sure the nation will continue to be the greatest when people allow greed to rule and set aside any attempts at compassion or trying to understand the concerns and needs of others who share the land with us. I find that kind of attitude completely disgusting.

Odd, FF, I didn't see anyone mention entitlements. But I think along with wanting a chance to have a successful life, (and, yes, through hard work, creativity, and a measure of luck) Americans also exhibit compassion, understanding, and charity. Those traits obviously stand out this week of Thanksgiving, no?

As for Ranger Paul's dilemma, I think it's perfectly understandable that once on the road you might not have access to the Internet, let alone the thought you'd need to check to see if a section of a park is closed due to a commercial being filmed. As for being patient enough to wait another 24 hours, it's also very likely that he might have had plane reservations and needed to get home for work or some other obligation that couldn't be put off.

And my guess is that the closure of the road was not something that the park service advertised on its website anyway. And Ranger Paul, I was at the Hoh in September and you did miss out on a wonderful experience.


Americans also exhibit compassion, understanding, and charity. Those traits obviously stand out this week of Thanksgiving, no?


Yes Americans do, most effectively through family, friends and church.

Yet how much more good might we all do if we do not restrict our compassion, understanding and charity to just a small, limited, select circle? I would hope that mine would reach far beyond those limits and include even those who disagree with me. Small circles limit all of us and stunt our growth.


and stunt our growth.


Depending on others is what stunts your growth.

BTW, I think I asked you this before and never got an answer. How do you define "greed" and who draws the line?

"can't we all just get along"..... You're both pretty far afield from the Supt's Anselmo's original story.

I agree with you MikeG, but unfortunately, too many fall under Eric Hoffer's theories. This is despite the recent electoral mandate REJECTING the politics of selfishness.

Mandate LOL - You mean the 47% that are takers? That makes the mandate of contributers 47 to 3.

Ok, we're closing this pool. Move along.