ethelred, I am mostly in agreement with your comment, however, I do think it is well documented that some areas are absorbed into the NPS pretty much for a political payoff, the NPS criteria being set aside to do so. A very interesting book on the issue is Dwight Rettie, "Our National Park System". Two glaring examples were Mar-A-Largo (Florida) and currently Steamtown, USA. At least Steamtown is an interesting place to visit. Mar-A-Largo was de-listed, but it took much to get it done. Mar-A-Largo was justified by the Senators of Florida at the time as a classic example of the lifestyle of the extremely wealthy (over consumption at its height).  It was the Post family and the widow was trying to get the three daughters interested in taking it over, but they all declined saying it was to expensive to maintain. In any case, a fascinating read.  I do think that when you get into de-listing, it is a a very complicated issue and can be quite polarizing. But the general state of our current political process truly is corrupted by the huge of amounts of money necessary to get anyone elected or get through the army of well heeled lobbyists at every door. It is quite polarized in my view.  

"I am mostly in agreement with your comment, however, I do think it is well documented that some areas are absorbed into the NPS pretty much for a political payoff, the NPS criteria being set aside to do so."

That is correct. A more recent example is Paterson Great Falls National Historical Park. The NPS conducted a special resource study and determined the area was not something that should be included in the National Park System. But ultimately these decisions are made by Congress, so it got included anyway.

I merely pointed out the NPS's strict criteria to refute the idea that they'll add any ol' place just because it's old. Not so. If you read through their criteria for national significance, for suitability, and for feasibility, they're sensible criteria and they're fairly strict. And if you read through a lot of the SRSes they conduct, in plenty of instances they decide an area is lacking in one or more of these criteria and recommend against inclusion. Usually Congress heeds that.

Agree ethelred, on the whole, the NPS effort and policies addressing listing new areas set a high standard. Thank you. 

ethelred,

Do you have a link to these stringent historical crieteria the NPS uses.  I would like to know how common homes occupied for a few years by people who became president 40 years later can meet such thorough vetting. 

Thank you Kurt for offering this article as a "Reader Participation Day" topic.  The discussion of the evolving mission of the NPS is many decades old, with Horace Albright requesting upon his retirement as the agency's second director that the  NPS not evolve into yet another government bureaucracy. 

All too often from where I sit, I see the NPS succumbing to the economic and political pressures of industrial tourism, with every community, Chamber of Commerce, and special interest group desiring it's own green spot on the map designated with an NPS arrowhead and local visitor center. 

The argument made for keeping the catchall system as it is and thus avoiding duplication of staff expertise, seems sound.  This duplication of expertise would certainly occur if the NPS were given a more restricted focus on the management of natural areas of national and international ecological and scenic significance, with other entities given responsibility for areas significant to our nation's history, culture, military achievements, and to urban and suburban outdoor recreation. 

On the other hand, such an argument can also be made for consolidating all federal agencies that utilize employees having similar expertise in law enforement, administration, education, science, interpretation, etc., in their management of large or small areas of national and cultural significance.  

Perhaps this logic was what was in the minds of Clinton/Gore administrators when they "reinvented" government and removed staff scientists from the NPS and transferred them into the now defunct U.S. Biological Survey (since absorbed by the USGS)?

Re: the question from ec about criteria for proposed new units for the NPS. I'd suspect there are documents with more details, but a summary of those criteria is found at this link.

What appears to be the same or a very similar document is found here in a plain text layout (a .pdf file) that may be easier to read than the brochure cited above.

Apparently I was logged off so I got to read a posters comments I have on ignore. So I'll comment.   Instead of asking others to produce information why don't you go lookup the SRS documents for the homes for which you have an axe to grind with their inclusion in the NPS. You have not proven that the NPS didn't reject those sites and Congress went ahead and included them anyway. It was tempting to give you a lmgtfy.com link to help you out.  It was nice of Jim to provide what he did.  Now back to the ignore feature.... Thank you Kurt.

You have not proven that the NPS didn't reject those sites and Congress went ahead and included them anyway.

Since I didn't make the claim, I don't know why I would have to prove anything.  I am sorry it offends you when I ask for assistance.