Regarding “McClintock clarifies Yosemite support” (Letters, June 26): Tom McClintock’s chutzpah in his remarks regarding his “defense” of public access and use with the proposed acquisition of land to enlarge the boundaries of Yosemite raises my blood pressure. He writes, “Public access is increasingly restricted” (in Yosemite). Congressman McClintock, can you cite some examples of the public being denied entrance to the park?
Gee, I didn’t realize some of us were being singled out for exclusion. Perhaps his dislike for anything governmental, including the Park Service, betrays his tea party sympathies.
He further states there is no prospect for development (of the proposed land), giving us time to make sure it will be in the public’s interest and access for use. Not so if the present owners are forced to sell.
Where was his concern for the public and the merchants who depend on tourism when he voted to close down the government? He wasted no time making a decision that led to the closure of Yosemite, ensuring the public would not have access and use. How does that square with his “concern” for public access now?
Wayne Kirkbride, Twain Harte