Is Yosemite NP's name going to remain?

dave54 wrote:
The old company is claiming they have the merchandising rights to the names. They offered to sell the rights to the new company for the outrageous price of $140 million. Outside appraisers claim the value is closer to $40 million.



I disagree this is an example of what would happen if the states took over. If they were state owned this probably would not have happened in the first place. The executive order mandating private contractors operate federal facilities where feasible was first issued by President Harry Truman.

You are possibly half right. If the states had owned them they would likely have already been sold off to the highest bidder. How's that privatization thing working out?
RichH

I am sure who is lying. DNC!

Captain_Happy wrote:
Yosemite National Park is still named YNP, it's building, campground, etc inside the park that's changed names. So everybody just chill.

Which still sucks. The names of those buildings, many of which are historical landmarks, were there long before DNC was managing the park concessions. Now the company is claiming on their Facebook page that they offered the names for free to the park. Not sure who is lying...

Yosemite National Park is still named YNP, it's building, campground, etc inside the park that's changed names. So everybody just chill.

The old company is claiming they have the merchandising rights to the names. They offered to sell the rights to the new company for the outrageous price of $140 million. Outside appraisers claim the value is closer to $40 million.

The names Awhanee and Curry Village are not copyrightable according to some lawyers, but will be tied up in court for years. In the meantime the concessionaire cannot sell the souvenir t-shirts and trinkets with the names Curry or Awahnee printed on them, so alternative names will be used until the legal smoke clears and lawyers for both sides get their cut.

I disagree this is an example of what would happen if the states took over. If they were state owned this probably would not have happened in the first place. The executive order mandating private contractors operate federal facilities where feasible was first issued by President Harry Truman.

The same thing has been going on at Grand Canyon NP for a couple of years. The concessionaire claims to have made $250 million in improvements and needs to be paid that much by the new concessionaire. Personally, I call that nothing more than maintenance. They have claimed the names of the lodges as well. What's next "McDonald's Arches National Park?" This is a perfect example of why the States should not take over NP's, Monuments or any other Federal lands. Exploitation would not only be rampant it would ruin the system and most likely result in a massive sell-off to the private sector with way less access for us folks in the future..
RichH

Yes, the name remains. Do a Google search. Lots of info on this out there. It isn't done yet but they are caving in for now.