FlySwatter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2009
- Messages
- 314
Exactly! Don't blame the govnt., blame the voters. Voters knee-jerk to the hot button issues and end up voting for extremes (left or right). What happened to Moderates?
Privatization of State parks?
- Thread starter iceyguides
- Start date
Exactly! Don't blame the govnt., blame the voters. Voters knee-jerk to the hot button issues and end up voting for extremes (left or right). What happened to Moderates?
FlySwatter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2009
- Messages
- 314
That seems to be a blue law that's antiquated. Although I think privatizing the SP system is a really BAD idea, I think government run liquor stores are a really BAD idea, too. I rarely drink, but I think liquor stores are much better off in the hands of entrepreneurs. Then tax the alcohol sales for revenue. (IMO) 😛int:
TimMurphy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,164
Dear flyswatter,
Are there any other moderates left besides you and I? ;-)
I don't think that privatizing every conceivable thing is a good idea at all. While there are many businesses that are sucessful over a long term there are also businesses that fail on a daily basis.
In my way of thinking privatizing something like State Parks and putting them in the hands of the HIGH BIDDER, because that is how it would be done, is a recipe for disaster.
It won't be long before the high bidder has investors screaming for returns and it runs out of capital. Service will decline and user costs will increase to make up the difference, ultimately everything will fail.
Governor Corbett and the State's Republican leadership have a ready made solution to the budget shortfall staring them right in the face yet they steadfastly refuse to tax the gas drillers.
Instead they prefer to offer up ridiculous alternative solutions in hopes that the populace becomes desperate enough to consider them.
Regards,
Tim Murphy 🙂
FlySwatter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2009
- Messages
- 314
...yet our voices are not heard. My theory is the extremists devote more time and energy to their causes and become the squeaky wheels in government.
As far as Darth Corbett is concerned, consider the heavy-handed budget cuts to education, the arts and social programs compared to the $20 million grant he signed to renovate PNC field (Lackawanna Co.). The management (NY Yankees + Mandalay Sports Properties) can't get a decent crowd there now (A-Rod's rehab excluded), but throwing school money at it will solve that problem. :roll:
tomgamber
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2006
- Messages
- 10,625
- City Failure to provide a legitimate answer may disqualify your entry
- Greensburg, PA
I don;t think they would be sold outright but leased for private enterprise. Laurel mtn. ski area is on state land but leased by 7-springs ski resort's ownership. Of course if this is an example of the success we can expect, they might as well just lock it up now.
gulfgreyhound
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2007
- Messages
- 6,253
Take the government out of the equasion and everything is owned by businesses.Less government,less taxes,less intrusion. Sound familliar.
Our Gov. wanted to put privately run campgrounds on state park land. Typical example of what the Republicans see as supporting private businesses. Fortunately it was stopped locally,but I'm sure it will be tried again. Which president wanted to sell off the National Parks?
Our Gov. wanted to put privately run campgrounds on state park land. Typical example of what the Republicans see as supporting private businesses. Fortunately it was stopped locally,but I'm sure it will be tried again. Which president wanted to sell off the National Parks?
KeithS
Active member
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2010
- Messages
- 1,227
It won't be long before the high bidder has investors screaming for returns and it runs out of capital. Service will decline and user costs will increase to make up the difference, ultimately everything will fail.
THIS. And the movie said "Greed works"; but for whom?
THIS. And the movie said "Greed works"; but for whom?
KeithS
Active member
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2010
- Messages
- 1,227
It won't be long before the high bidder has investors screaming for returns and it runs out of capital. Service will decline and user costs will increase to make up the difference, ultimately everything will fail.
THIS. And the movie said "Greed works"; but for whom?
As far as Darth Corbett is concerned, consider the heavy-handed budget cuts to education, the arts and social programs compared to the $20 million grant he signed to renovate PNC field (Lackawanna Co.). The management (NY Yankees + Mandalay Sports Properties) can't get a decent crowd there now (A-Rod's rehab excluded), but throwing school money at it will solve that problem.
And Corbett's as A**.
THIS. And the movie said "Greed works"; but for whom?
As far as Darth Corbett is concerned, consider the heavy-handed budget cuts to education, the arts and social programs compared to the $20 million grant he signed to renovate PNC field (Lackawanna Co.). The management (NY Yankees + Mandalay Sports Properties) can't get a decent crowd there now (A-Rod's rehab excluded), but throwing school money at it will solve that problem.
And Corbett's as A**.
dryflyguy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2006
- Messages
- 6,324
- City Failure to provide a legitimate answer may disqualify your entry
- Pittsburgh
Count me in with it being a bad idea also.
Maybe it's time for the parks to start charging a day use fee to bring in some revenue. I don't think it would be that big of a deal for a person - who really wants to visit a certain place - to cough up a modest fee.
The wife and I vacationed in Michigan last month - and that's what they do there. They charged like $8 a day per vehicle - and it was good for any state owned park.
And every place that we visited was very well maintained. Certainly made it worth the cost IMO
Maybe it's time for the parks to start charging a day use fee to bring in some revenue. I don't think it would be that big of a deal for a person - who really wants to visit a certain place - to cough up a modest fee.
The wife and I vacationed in Michigan last month - and that's what they do there. They charged like $8 a day per vehicle - and it was good for any state owned park.
And every place that we visited was very well maintained. Certainly made it worth the cost IMO
FlySwatter
Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2009
- Messages
- 314
This was my experience in Florida, too. Wiggins Pass (Naples)charged a similar fee and was packed.
Taxes are lower there, too. ...just sayin'.
GRP
Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2008
- Messages
- 233
DE State Parks charge a fee to access them. It is $4 a day for in state vehicles and $8 a day for out of state vehicles. You can also buy a season pass for $26 for an in state vehicle. Does it keep folks away? No. The parks are packed. Cape Henlopen gets so crowded they actually close the park and don't let people in until those using the park leave.
TimMurphy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,164
Dear GRP,
I think you are mixing apples and oranges when you speak of Park entrance fees when the original post, and what Corbett suggested, is transfering the administration and operation of the parks to private businesses.
I have a question for supporters of this "idea". If private businesses are so sure that running PA's State Parks is a money maker why don't they prove it conclusively by purchasing a couple thousand acres? Then they can develop the park by adding lakes, campgrounds, restrooms, hiking trails, educational programs, etc - the kind of things you find in every State Park, with their own damn money. It won't be long until they are rollin' in the dough, right?
Wrong, this is just another stupid idea designed to allow undeserving opportunists to profit from parks that the taxpayers of the State of PA already own and support with their tax dollars.
Privatization is nothing more than giving away publically owned property. It's a stupid idea on it's face, and it will always be a stupid idea.
Regards,
Tim Murphy 🙂
I think you are mixing apples and oranges when you speak of Park entrance fees when the original post, and what Corbett suggested, is transfering the administration and operation of the parks to private businesses.
I have a question for supporters of this "idea". If private businesses are so sure that running PA's State Parks is a money maker why don't they prove it conclusively by purchasing a couple thousand acres? Then they can develop the park by adding lakes, campgrounds, restrooms, hiking trails, educational programs, etc - the kind of things you find in every State Park, with their own damn money. It won't be long until they are rollin' in the dough, right?
Wrong, this is just another stupid idea designed to allow undeserving opportunists to profit from parks that the taxpayers of the State of PA already own and support with their tax dollars.
Privatization is nothing more than giving away publically owned property. It's a stupid idea on it's face, and it will always be a stupid idea.
Regards,
Tim Murphy 🙂
Gorosaurus
Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2011
- Messages
- 376
Tim is correct. These parks already belong to us, why should we have to pay more money (than we already do) to visit them?
And why would anyone have the right to sell of property that is already ours?
No, our national and state parks should be kept as far from the current standards of American life and expectations as possible. Them being used for things OTHER than profit is exactly what protects them. They aren't assets, and we should never think of them as such.
And why would anyone have the right to sell of property that is already ours?
No, our national and state parks should be kept as far from the current standards of American life and expectations as possible. Them being used for things OTHER than profit is exactly what protects them. They aren't assets, and we should never think of them as such.
bikerfish
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 29, 2009
- Messages
- 3,640
I wouldn't mind paying a small fee to use them, like said above, lots of other parks do the same. I am totally against them being privatized though. I'm also leery of having a consessionaire lease them, it works in some places, not so good in others. if a lease situation occurs, I think very tight regulations over how they are run would have to be implemented. our state parks are awesome, I think they actually won some type of award a few years back. we need to keep them that way.
when I'm camping in a state park, I like that a forest ranger, someone with a passion and interest in the outdoors, is there to talk to and answer questions. if privatization occurs, we might end up with flunkies from the carnival simply taking our money.
when I'm camping in a state park, I like that a forest ranger, someone with a passion and interest in the outdoors, is there to talk to and answer questions. if privatization occurs, we might end up with flunkies from the carnival simply taking our money.
GRP
Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2008
- Messages
- 233
Tim,
I wasn't commenting on the original intent of the post, which is the privatization of the park. I was adding input to the few posts above mine which talked about charging entrance/usage fees (controlled by the state) for these parks. I'm against the privatization of any publicly owned state property. That is a slippery slope we don't want to go down. I am not against the charging of an entrance/usage fee if that is what it takes to keep the parks in the hands of the state and ultimately keeps it belonging to the people.
I wasn't commenting on the original intent of the post, which is the privatization of the park. I was adding input to the few posts above mine which talked about charging entrance/usage fees (controlled by the state) for these parks. I'm against the privatization of any publicly owned state property. That is a slippery slope we don't want to go down. I am not against the charging of an entrance/usage fee if that is what it takes to keep the parks in the hands of the state and ultimately keeps it belonging to the people.
The_Sasquatch
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2011
- Messages
- 6,419
- City Failure to provide a legitimate answer may disqualify your entry
- Malden, WV
The government has a responsibility to protect our resources within reason. State and national parks are resources. Even as a "privatize it!" Libertarian, I see the need to keep these resources public.
Booze on the other hand....government has NO responsibility to own businesses, nor do I believe they have the right. Parks are a resource, booze is not. One protects the natural resources, within reason I might add, the other is just government injecting itself into the free market. Booze should be sold and managed on the free market just like any other good. The idea of the government owning retail stores is absolutely ridiculous to me.
Corbett's priorities are absolutely whack. I get it. There are a lot of people here who are tired of things like teacher's unions and their demands. They're tired of a tyrannical property tax that robs us of our money; forcing people, particularly people on fixed incomes who have already paid off their mortgages, to surrender their property because they can't afford to pay the tax on it. We get it; there are things that need to be fixed in the funding of our education system. His policies hurt the people on the front lines though; the students, the parents, and the teachers. You want to make massive cuts in the state budget to get it back on track? Fine. I agree, that's a good idea. Its a good idea to reform the funding of education in this state. Throw educators and students under the bus? Not so much of a great idea....
Booze on the other hand....government has NO responsibility to own businesses, nor do I believe they have the right. Parks are a resource, booze is not. One protects the natural resources, within reason I might add, the other is just government injecting itself into the free market. Booze should be sold and managed on the free market just like any other good. The idea of the government owning retail stores is absolutely ridiculous to me.
Corbett's priorities are absolutely whack. I get it. There are a lot of people here who are tired of things like teacher's unions and their demands. They're tired of a tyrannical property tax that robs us of our money; forcing people, particularly people on fixed incomes who have already paid off their mortgages, to surrender their property because they can't afford to pay the tax on it. We get it; there are things that need to be fixed in the funding of our education system. His policies hurt the people on the front lines though; the students, the parents, and the teachers. You want to make massive cuts in the state budget to get it back on track? Fine. I agree, that's a good idea. Its a good idea to reform the funding of education in this state. Throw educators and students under the bus? Not so much of a great idea....
TimMurphy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,164
Dear GRP,
Just so we are clear I didn't write my post with the idea that you approved of privatization. I just wanted to make sure that people stuck to the idea at hand and I apologize if I wasn't clear about that.
As far as entrance fees go I'm one of those dorks that writes their name and address on the envelope and sticks it in the honor box along with the fee. If something costs me something and I decide to avail myself of it then I pay.
I see privatization as something that can't work out for something like a State Park. A liquor store, maybe, but not a State Park. There is too much already invested in our State Park system by the taxpayers of PA and the users of the parks to hand the reins to a for profit enterprise and say "Good Luck."
The truth of matter is that if it weren't for someone searching for a quick short term ROI there'd be no talk whatsoever of privatization. Whether that's the fault/goal of Governor Corbett or the proposed park owners matters not a whit.
If it really was a great idea it would have come under serious consideration at a time when the State was flush with cash rather than in desperate need. That alone proves it's a stupid idea meant only for someone to profit at a level that far exceeds their expenditure and effort, which unfortunately now seems to be the "American Dream."
Regards,
Tim Murphy 🙂
Just so we are clear I didn't write my post with the idea that you approved of privatization. I just wanted to make sure that people stuck to the idea at hand and I apologize if I wasn't clear about that.
As far as entrance fees go I'm one of those dorks that writes their name and address on the envelope and sticks it in the honor box along with the fee. If something costs me something and I decide to avail myself of it then I pay.
I see privatization as something that can't work out for something like a State Park. A liquor store, maybe, but not a State Park. There is too much already invested in our State Park system by the taxpayers of PA and the users of the parks to hand the reins to a for profit enterprise and say "Good Luck."
The truth of matter is that if it weren't for someone searching for a quick short term ROI there'd be no talk whatsoever of privatization. Whether that's the fault/goal of Governor Corbett or the proposed park owners matters not a whit.
If it really was a great idea it would have come under serious consideration at a time when the State was flush with cash rather than in desperate need. That alone proves it's a stupid idea meant only for someone to profit at a level that far exceeds their expenditure and effort, which unfortunately now seems to be the "American Dream."
Regards,
Tim Murphy 🙂
