Search for a command to run...
Communities in rural areas regularly come into conflict with government bodies regarding the use of protected lands. From New York, to Alaska, to Nevada—and many places in between—a common question emerges: who should have authority to regulate human activity on and around wilderness lands? It is not a new phenomenon for urban dwellers, often controlling money and political power, to use influence and a specter of conservation to control what is permitted in rural spaces. Resulting unrest among rural residents may be the result of the exclusion of poor, racially underrepresented, indigenous, and other residents who earn their livelihood from the land. Using New York’s Adirondack Park (Park) as a case study, this Article makes two claims. The first claim is descriptive. It argues that New York State constitutional protection of “forever-wild” public land creates tensions between conservationists, some of whom reside outside the Park, and often poorer Park residents. This Article identifies the regulation of protected land as a form of exclusion in part because of state preemption of local land use approvals on both public and private land in the Park. This Article’s second claim is normative. It argues that state regulations of protected public lands, as well as private property nearby, may better serve the public interest by relaxing some regulations. Potential relaxed rules might improve Park access and further alternative economic development activities, such as agritourism and ecotourism. Such approaches advance both continued conservation of wilderness resources, responsible economic development, and community building.