Or take the recent divestiture of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, a site in Washington, D.C., whose leaky roof for years caused headaches for Park Service administrators. One of the historical facts behind proposals to divest parks is that some Park Service professionals have for decades ridiculed and disparaged sites that did not fit their personal model of a proper park. Several directors, beginning with the first, Steph en Mather, and the second, Horace Albright, have sought to purge the system of then-existing units deemed unworthy. Those and later efforts were responsible for eliminating at least 20 parks from the system, some of them finally dropped only after years o f deliberate neglect. Objecting to a proposed addition to the National Park System before and while Congress is considering it is altogether appropriate.
People can honestly disagree on the merits or extent of a proposed park.
Experts often disagree, and conflicting opinions a re properly brought to bear on the congressional process we call democracy. However, once Congress acts and a bill is signed by the president, it is the undebatable trust of the National Park Service to administer the law fairly, consistently, and with du e professional care. Badmouthing parks has consequences. Our park system should be treated as a physical analogy to our Constitution. It reflects values just as sacred to our national life and character.