I noticed on a map one day that the entire coast of Oregon consisted of parks. As it turns out, there is 363 continuous miles of protected shoreline. In a day and age where companies and individuals have sectioned off shoreline, or destroyed its natural beauty by building right to the shore, Oregon's approach is refreshing. Of course, we have to be careful of the government trying to take private land. However, Oregon's approach should be carefully considered in preserving nature. I'm all for advancement and economic development, but at what point does it become excessive, over-development? Maybe the answer lies in comparing the two extremes.
Go to a place like Virginia Beach, and then somewhere like Oregon's coast, which is better? Maybe we need a bit of both and some better planning in overbuilt areas. Take the U.S. side of Niagara Falls. Decades ago, development was pushed back from the edge of the falls. Yes it did slow development on this side, but that can’t all be the park’s fault. But the park does protect the real beauty and value of the site, until you look up and see the overdeveloped Canadian side and helicopters buzzing overhead. More on the Oregon coast here. -D
In California, there is constant battle between those who want to develop the coastline, and those who want to protect it. I doubt the battle will ever cease.