Florida state parks now legally protected from commercial development
May 23 (UPI) -- State parks in Florida are now protected from commercial construction after Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the State Park Preservation Act into law Thursday.
The act, which will take effect in July, prevents developers from constructing hotels, golf courses or other commercial enterprises in any of Florida's 175 state parks.
Pinellas County Democratic Rep. Lindsay Cross, who also is an environmental scientist, posted to social media Friday that the act establishes "protections for all 175 state parks against commercial development," and also thanked "everyone who fought for this bill, and who stood up to preserve our home."
Republican Rep. Peggy Gossett-Seidman, Highland Beach, called the passage of the act a "bipartisan, bicameral legislative victory," on her X account Thursday, and then quoted "The Lorax" by Dr. Seuss to close her post with "I speak for the trees, for the trees have no tongues."
The new law came after a backlash caused by a purported plan proposed by the state in 2024 and allegedly leaked by the Florida Wildlife Federation to allow commercial development at nine different state parks. All future developments are not completely banned but will instead need to be conservation-minded, and support nature-friendly activities such as camping, hiking and kayaking.
The Florida Wildlife Federation posted a note of appreciation to its website Thursday, with thanks given to the Florida Senate and House "for their unanimous support of this legislation every step of the way," and it called the law "a massive win for wildlife, outdoor spaces, and future generations who will get to experience Florida's natural wonders just as they should be: wild and natural."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
23 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Castro to seek reelection to state Senate rather than make U.S. House bid
State Sen. Cristina Castro, D-Elgin, has announced she will seek reelection to her District 22 post rather than make a bid next year for the Congressional seat being vacated by U.S. Rep. Raja Krisnamoorthi. 'When I first entered public service, it was with a singular goal: to deliver for my community and make life better for the people of the 22nd District, who I've been lucky to call my neighbors for my entire life,' Castro said in a news release. 'Over the past eight years as state senator, I'm proud to have stayed true to that mission — delivering real results and championing the working families of my district. As I think about the future and how I can continue to make the biggest impact, that goal remains my North Star.' In addition to Elgin, Castro's district encompasses all or part of 10 communities in Cook and Kane counties. Her statement came the same week that state Rep. Anna Moeller, D-Elgin, also announced she also would seek reelection to the House instead of making a bid for Congress. Krishnamoorthi, who represents the 8th District in the U.S. House, has announced plans to run in the primary for the seat currently held by U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, who plans to retire. Both he and Durbin are Democrats, as are two other candidates who have announced they're running for the job: Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton and U.S. Rep. Robin Kelly, D-Matteson. Castro, elected to the state Senate in 2016, is the majority caucus whip for the 103rd General Assembly, chair of the Senate Executive Committee, and a member of the Latino Caucus, according to her website biography. She serves on the Appropriations, Energy and Public Utilities, Insurance, Labor and Revenue committees. Prior to being elected to the state Senate, she served on the Kane County Board from 2008 to 2016. Castro holds an associate degree from Elgin Community College and bachelor's and master's degree in business administration from Northern Illinois University.
UPI
25 minutes ago
- UPI
Mahmoud Khalil offers declaration, describes damages to his life
June 6 (UPI) -- Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia University graduate detained by the Trump administration in March for deportation over his pro-Palestinian views, offered a public declaration that details what he's experienced since his arrest. In a case document filed Thursday, Khalil listed what he described as the "irreparable harms" he has suffered, which he claimed have affected several parts of his life that "include dignitary and reputational harm, personal and familial hardship, including constant fear for personal safety, continued detention, restrictions on my freedom of expression, and severe damage to my professional future." The declaration, which was made from inside the LaSalle Detention Center in Jena, La., where Khalil has been held since March 9, puts focus on the birth of his son, which happened during his incarceration. "Instead of holding my wife's hand in the delivery room, I was crouched on a detention center floor, whispering through a crackling phone line as she labored alone." Khalil described. "I listened to her pain, trying to comfort her while 70 other men slept around me. When I heard my son's first cries, I buried my face in my arms so no one would see me weep." Khalil described that the first time he saw his son was through a window, and the first time he held him was in an immigration courtroom, to which his wife had to travel ten hours to reach, with their newborn. "I speak to her as often as possible, but these conversations are not private, everything is monitored by the government," Khalil said, which makes it impossible for them to comfortably speak freely. "We leave so much unsaid, and that silence weighs heavily on both of us." Khalil said that not only has the situation been "devastating" for him, but that his wife has dealt with harassment since his arrest. Khalil further described the anguish of seeing Trump administration officials post statements and photos of him on social media that he purports as "accompanied by inflammatory language, grotesque and false accusations, and open celebration of my deportation." Khalil expressed concern for his future as well. He said he was hired by the nonprofit equality-focused Oxfam International group only days before his arrest as a Palestine and Middle East/ North Africa policy advisor, and was scheduled to start work in April, but the job offer was formally revoked. He says "I strongly believe" his arrest and continued detention is the reason for this. He added that should the charges against him stand, "the harm to my professional career would be career-ending." Khalil further worried his arrest would result in a lifetime of "being flagged, delayed, or denied when traveling, applying for visas, or engaging with consular authorities anywhere in the world," and not just him, but his wife and son. His mother had also applied for a visa in March to visit the United States to see their child be born, and although that was approved, the U.S. embassy returned her passport without a stamp, and now her case is under "administrative processing," and remains unapproved. Khalil's elderly father, whom he describes as "severely disabled," lives in Germany, and he ponders whether any country allied with the United States will ever grant him entry should the charges stand. Khalil detailed the allegations under which he has been held for deportation, which not only did he deny as testimony at his May immigration court hearing, at which he purports "The government attorneys did not ask me any questions regarding these issues." However, Khalil maintained his greatest concern of all is a determination by Secretary of State Marco Rubio based on a law that an "alien" can be deported should his presence in the United States "have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences." "I understand that the Rubio Determination is not only a ground for deportation, but it is also a bar to entry," said Khalil. "In other words, no matter what happens to the other charge against me, it is the Rubio Determination that will make this country, the country of my wife and child, a country I cannot return to in the future."
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's new approach to Russia's war in Ukraine might be his worst yet
Donald Trump and his team have spent a fair amount of time recently trying to convince the public that the president's policy toward Russia's war in Ukraine is having a positive impact. In mid-March, for example, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt boasted, 'I can say we are on the 10th yard line of peace, and we've never been closer to a peace deal than we are in this moment.' Two months later, Trump participated in a two-hour phone meeting with Vladimir Putin, and the Republican touted the discussion as a possible breakthrough. 'The tone and spirit of the conversation were excellent,' the American president declared, adding that his chat would 'immediately' lead to new diplomatic negotiations. Soon after, Kyiv came under a large-scale Russian drone and missile attack, described by Ukrainian officials as the largest aerial assault on the country since the war began. It was soon followed by Ukraine's surprise drone attack that proved disastrous for Russia, and that jolted global perceptions. This in turn led Russia to launch one of the largest barrages of missiles and drones of the war at targets across Ukraine. This does not look like 'the 10th yard line of peace.' It was against this backdrop that Trump has apparently come up with a new metaphor. The New York Times reported: As Germany's chancellor, Friedrich Merz, sat beside him watching in silence, President Trump compared Russia and Ukraine to two fighting children who needed to work out their differences for a while before anyone could intervene. 'Sometimes you see two young children fighting like crazy,' Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. 'They hate each other, and they're fighting in a park, and you try and pull them apart. They don't want to be pulled. Sometimes you're better off letting them fight for a while and then pulling them apart.' 'And I gave that analogy to Putin yesterday,' the Republican added. 'I said, 'President, maybe you have to keep fighting and suffering a lot, because both sides are suffering, before you pull them apart, before they're able to be pulled apart.'' So, a few things. First, comparing this conflict to a dispute among children on a playground is unhelpful, and Trump complaining about anyone engaging in juvenile behavior is unwise, given everything we know about his temperament and frequent tantrums. Second, the idea that the White House is prepared to let Russia and Ukraine 'fight for a while' overlooks the inconvenient fact that they've already been fighting for a while. Indeed, Russia invaded Ukraine back in February 2022 — more than three years ago — which Trump described at the time as 'genius' and part of a 'wonderful' strategy. But let's also not lose sight of the evolution of the American president's thinking. Trump's Plan A for the war in Ukraine was ending the conflict within 24 hours by way of a secret strategy he assured voters was real. When it became obvious that this strategy didn't actually exist, Trump moved on to Plan B: He told Russia that if it failed to end the conflict quickly, the White House 'would have no other choice' but to impose new economic sanctions. When Putin ignored those threats and Trump failed to follow through, the American president floated Plan C (international economic penalties designed to force a ceasefire), Plan D (Trump-backed bilateral talks between Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy) and Plan E (bilateral talks between Trump and Putin). Plan F — White House passivity — is now increasingly coming into focus. Trump's latest plan to end the conflict is apparently to stop trying to end the conflict. This post updates our related earlier coverage. This article was originally published on
