For some reason I ended up back on the start of this thread and saw this post and picture. I think I now know what this is. It is a loading platform, sort of like a stand-alone loading dock, probably from CCC days. I guess you would back a truck up to it, unload onto this platform, then ??? Not sure what it looks like from the other side - does it have a ramp? If not, maybe it had a wooden ramp that is now gone?
I brought this up earlier in this thread. Nothing we can do about it except grumble. It seems that whenever a government entity, federal, state, county, township is involved money is wasted. This is no exception. Harvesting companies pay to harvest the lumber and their profit is in selling the logs to mills. Here "we" taxpayers not only paid the lumber harvester but allowed them to keep the logs. Somewhere in the early proposal, wasn't a portion of the lumber to be kept for use in the parks? Business as usual, bend over everyone.The state paid $17,160 to have the 16.4 acres logged; the contractor has retained the logs as part of the payment.
This may be what you are referring to:... Somewhere in the early proposal, wasn't a portion of the lumber to be kept for use in the parks?
(That's probably not a direct quote, but close.)According to the forest fire service's plan, some of the wood from the harvested trees will be repurposed and used to construct interpretive kiosks to elucidate the CCC's (Civilian Conservation Corps) efforts...
Well that was interesting. I really didn't think they were going to leave it as is for 2 years and see what happens, which is what DEP seems to be saying.
Yes, that was the quote. So now that the FFS didn't do that, you're saying the park service is saying "now what?" Yes, I agree.
Again too late now, wasn't one of the arguments from the FFS that the trees were originally planted by the CCC as a make-work program with the intention to latter by harvested? In reality, the expectation was to make money for the State or the park. I really doubt the intention was when the trees were harvested to pay for the harvest and give the logs away. Think of it as a business which it is. What business makes a product then has to pay someone to give it away? Yep, good business practice indeed.
Lets not forget we all pay into that account that "hands unemployed people money" when we are workingI think you are putting too much thought into the long-term end of the process rather than the beginning. In the present day, unemployed people are simply handed money, with nothing expected in return. Back then the priority was putting people to work, doing anything remotely considered productive. It wasn't a business practice. It was a government make-work program, which I personally consider a better way of handling unemployment than how it is now.
Could it be that they were given the trees in lieu of part of the payment? 1 or 2 men plus equipment since December for $17,000 sounds low.