Privatization of State parks?

[tig]

I'll take Corbett you can have good ol Martin OMalley. The dicator of Maryland. If you want to make a profit, privatize it. If you want it to go in the hole, let government run it. Haven't we all had enough of government. You can't run you're house hold the way government runs so why do you think they can run anything? More taxes that usually solves nothing.

 

[JackM]

Everything has its cost; it's up to us to ask, is it worth it.

Is it worth two dollars from every taxpayer to provide a free park system for all to enjoy, rich or poor, wearing a tie or a pair of Daisy Duke's? If all taxes and spending worked like private enterprise, you may as well toss out the government "by the People" concept.

As for State Stores they need not dissolve the monopoly to begin to allow private concerns to sale wine and spirits. All you need to do is modify it, limit the duration of the expectation (to protect business investments that might be made), and see how it works for ya.

Make the private businesses purchase through the state monopoly and retain the revenue, while divorcing the gubment from the hassles such as paying a living wage, providing medical benefits and pensions for employees.

I don't support this, I'm just saying, for those that do, there are alternatives to complete divestment.

 

[Stevie-B]

Some national parks are already operated by private companies. Yellowstone has a private company running all the lodges, stores, and eateries. Not saying I endorse the concept just putting out the information.

 

[FlySwatter]

tig wrote:
I'll take Corbett you can have good ol Martin OMalley. The dicator of Maryland. If you want to make a profit, privatize it. If you want it to go in the hole, let government run it. Haven't we all had enough of government. You can't run you're house hold the way government runs so why do you think they can run anything? More taxes that usually solves nothing.

That’s the main dilemma voters face each election: Two ridiculous choices.

The government cannot run like a household nor can it run like a business. Those two models oversimplify our hyper complex government to the point of being foolish. That doesn’t mean our governments can run huge deficits either. Some difficult choices need to be made to balance the budget and begin to reduce the deficit. In the short term we need to cut the fat out of spending AND raise taxes. The sooner we reduce the deficit, the sooner we reduces the tremendous interest on that debt.

As far as the state parks, forests and game lands are concerned, as long as they break even, I’m good with them. IMO, they are jewels in the state crown and a resource fo ALL to enjoy. If you think that makes me a socialist, I can live with that. The more land we set aside an preserve, the better. When we follow/worship the almighty dollar as the means and the end we doom the land and, by extension, ourselves.

 

[CRB]

It sounds like Donny Beaver, his free lunch talk, and the Governor is listening and would like to act on it.

 

[pratt]

Stevie-B wrote:
Some national parks are already operated by private companies. Yellowstone has a private company running all the lodges, stores, and eateries. Not saying I endorse the concept just putting out the information.

there is quite a bit of concessionaires in PA State Parks already - eg. snack bar at Hickory Run beach, marina at Moraine State Park, etc.

I'm assuming privatization of PA State Parks means taking DCNR out of the picture completely...which imo is a very bad idea.

I'm all for entrance fees, if that's what is needed to help fund the parks. As long as PA residents get a discount over what out-of-state folks would have to pay....

 

[vcregular]

What used to be free, now has a fee

 

[troutbert]

PA state parks have been free since they were founded, back around 1930 or so. And that was when DCNR had no Marcellus money coming in.

So what's different now, as opposed to the last 80 years or so?

 

[The_Sasquatch]

State pension plans to pay for?

 

[troutbert]

The_Sasquatch wrote:
State pension plans to pay for?

Is that something new?

 

[The_Sasquatch]

I believe the issue of them becoming unsustainable is newish...but I was being snarky. Hard to pin it down to one funding issue or another. I'm sure that as our state bureaucracy grows, money gets moved around from "less important" programs to the more important ones, such as paying for SEPTA, state welfare programs, pensions, roads...okay not roads, etc. I'm just not sure how high up the poll the state park system is to most politicians.

 

[pcray1231]

2 weekends ago I paid to enter a county park. Wasn't a big deal. Had a family reunion there. Gatehouse at the entrace, stop, $2 per car, stick this piece of paper on the dash, and you're on your way. Afterall, they're picking up garbage, maintaining restrooms, etc. No big deal.

 

[pcray1231]

roads...okay not roads, etc.

You saying it's not important, or not being funded?

I think PennDot is funded just fine, maybe even overfunded. Just terrible management. Some terrible roads and bridges out there. But yet, we resurface roads that don't need it over and over again. Further, wouldn't it be more efficient to do less projects more quickly?

 

[The_Sasquatch]

Yeah its important. Your point is taken, its more of an issue of management, not funding.

Either way, it ain't gettin done.

 

[quillfly]

some generic basics of about all state parks . with the exception of the two largest parks in the state all run with operation cost greater then the revenue that they generate. the reason why they are supplied funding is that they are a huge economic base for other industy and sales that easily cover what is supplied to the parks. so what happens if you privatize the parks is either services decrease to cut cost and the facility becomes less attractive or prices (which are really reasonable)increase and push people out of what they consider reasonable.does the system work on the robbing peter to pay paul idea yea but in this case the existance of paul gives peter a greater amount of cash then he would have had without paul.

 

[WildTigerTrout]

Gorosaurus wrote:
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.

+1 My sentiments exactly!