And what part of that says that citizens of the state of Utah will not be hired by the federal government to assist in maintaining the land?
Yes, if you take your poorly worded summary literally, then I can see how you would come to that conclusion. But nowhere in that article do they literally say that it "keeps Utah people from maintaining that land". Those are your words, not theirs.
Except the money the federal government uses to maintain the land frees up the money the STATE used to maintain the land. So now the state has more money it can use to spend on whatever it thinks it needs.
Until you account for the fact that the state now cannot develop the land to improve its economy.
Improve the lives of Americans? Ok, first off, it hasn't. The state has had that land for I don't know how long and has yet to develop it. It's possible it's value is insignificant compared to the political backlash of destroying the landmark. But things have changed. Anger is in. Development is in.
What is your point here?
You start out by saying it hasn't (yet) improved the lives of Americans because it hasn't been developed. You then go on to say (in a very roundabout and confusing fashion -- what does "anger is in" even mean?) that they are likely to develop it soon. You've not only nullified what vestige of a point you had initially made, but failed to produce a coherent sentence in the process.
And Obama chose those two spots so odds are, he knows something we don't. Otherwise, why would he bother? What would be the motivation?
As SexWarrior says, it fits in with his pattern of making things as difficult as possible for Trump in two weeks.
The problem isn't some people doing a bad job, it's that the system of punishing that bad job is inadequate so much so that it's is cheaper to pay the price of disaster than to do things correctly in alot of cases with regards to resource extraction. And the businesses can't be shown to self regulate. When they've gotten what they want, they leave. The people affected are minor compared to the whole US and thus, the PR damage is simply listed as a cost of business.
Again, does that mean we shouldn't try to improve? We should just give up and never develop anything else again?
Think about the oil pipeline. The Obama administration spent years blocking it. A Trump administration plans to allow it to go through. With the support of Trump, even a "Destroying these old buildings is good for business." could be enough to crush any opposition. Hell, just look at the natives who have that oil pipeline going through their burial land. Look how much they're being pushed aside and arrested. And that's with a sympathetic president. Now picture an unsympathetic one.
I assume that by "the oil pipeline" you mean the Keystone XL extension. Since you've failed to actually explain what you mean, probably because you're too busy implying Trump is Satan incarnate, I did a little research for you and found
this example of an arrest. The guy decided it was a spiffing idea to burst into song while the Senate was in session. I'm sorry, but impeding the functioning of your federal legislature is a great way to get arrested in any country.
Most people do. Most people, however, don't run development companies. Or resource extraction companies. Or deal with the financial burden of fixing what they destroyed to get said resources that may, in fact, make the whole thing financially burdensome. The idea is to maximize profit and if you can do that by not replacing the rock you removed when you mined out the copper, then why would you?
A number of potential reasons:
1. You get fined for not doing it.
2. The bad publicity will bring a reduction in business, or even a boycott.
3. Your right to operate within the state of Utah might be taken away.
4. You actually
want to leave things as you found them, and the state of Utah provides you with a grant to make that fiscally justifiable.
There are various things the state of Utah and the people of America can do to discourage this behaviour. I'm not sure why you seem to think it's a choice between an executive order from Barack Obama and a free-for-all.
Great! How many requests to develop buildings, factories, or mining do they get? Cause it seems to me that it operates as a park with people who live there and farm and not as development land.
Did you actually read the link I posted? From (the very top of) the same page:
National Parks contain small towns and villages as well as more isolated farms. Some areas of towns or villages are protected as conservation areas to keep their traditional look and feel.
Some families have lived in the area for many generations. Traditionally people would make money from the landscape around them, as farmers, fishermen, foresters, miners or as craftsmen.
How about "The damage to this area by development will not offset the social benefit gained." ?
You have yet to demonstrate that. Either way, it should be up to the state of Utah to decide for themselves, not Barack Obama in the final two weeks of his presidency.