Association Forum - new idea for state park funding

Assn Members Area · Join

Home.

Association Forum

Ships Store

Cruising

Racing

Technical Tips

Photo Gallery - New

Boat Search - Updated

Manuals & Brochures

Swap Meet

Links

Officer Flag Line & Staff

Bylaws & Constitution

Members Area

Join the Association

Notice:
The advice given on this site is based upon individual or quoted experience, yours may differ.
The Officers, Staff and members of this site only provide information based upon the concept that anyone utilizing this information does so at their own risk and holds harmless all contributors to this site.

Association Forum

Username:	Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

All Forums

Catalina/Capri 25/250 Sailor's Forums

General Sailing Forum

new idea for state park funding

New Topic

Topic Locked

Printer Friendly

Author

Topic

Frank Hopper
Past Commodore

Member Avatar

Pitcairn Island
6776 Posts

Initially Posted - 01/28/2005 : 08:38:14

We who sail in state parks have been hit hard by state budget shortfalls. This seems to be a very good idea. Would you support it?[url="http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/editorial/10751627.htm"]newspaper article[/url]

Edited by - on

Steve Milby
Past Commodore

Members Avatar

USA
5902 Posts

Response Posted - 01/28/2005 : 09:28:28

No way! This proposal is a legislative shell game. It's deceptive because it leads one to believe that it will provide more money for the support of the parks. In fact, money that is presently being used to support the parks will be diverted to other uses, and that money will be replaced by this money. The article indicates that only part of the $5.00 (perhaps 1/3 to 1/5) that is raised ostensibly for the benefit of the parks will actually be allocated to the parks. The rest will go into the state's general fund, to pay for state expenses completely unrelated to the parks. I would support a reasonable proposal if the money was earmarked for the parks, but not this one.

Edited by - on

lcharlot
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Antigua and Barbuda
1301 Posts

Response Posted - 01/28/2005 : 12:04:03

Folsom Lake, where I keep my boat, is also a State Park (the marina itself is managed by a concessionaire for the State Park). California's State Parks Department has been hit by heavy budget cuts in the last two or three years, as the whole State Government reels under a $28 billion debt incurred during the electricity crisis a few years ago (generally known as "The Enron Scandal" outside of California). This budget cut resulted in doubling of most of the day-use, camping, and boat launch fees at all California State Parks: it now costs $10 to anchor out on the lake overnight, in addition to the $15 day-use boat launch and entrance fee. This fee was only $3.00 for boat camping and $7.00 for entrance/launch as recently as 2001, so in fact the fee has not just doubled, it's almost tripled. Those of us who have slips or dry storage pay an annual fee of $125 for entrance, on top of the $800 for dry storage or $1200 for a slip, and we still have to pay the $10/night fee for boat camping outside of the marina basin (no fee if you stay inside the marina basin if you are a slip or dry storage renter). The Kansas proposal to add another $5.00 to their DMV fees to fund State Parks would never fly here in California, where public resistance to tax increases, and distrust and resentment of the State Government in general, and the Department of Motor Vehicles in particular, is almost a religion. The State Park fee increase last year, coupled with the drought, $2.35/gallon gasoline, and the premature closure of the marina last July, caused a precipitous drop in day-use visitation at Folsom Lake last summer. On the typical Saturday afternoon last June, when the launch ramp parking lots should have been full to capacity by 1:00 in the afternoon, they were barely half-full. I don't know exactly how much revenue loss the Park suffered last year, compared to a "normal" year, but I guess it was at least a 30% drop in gate receipts from 2002.

Edited by - on

At Ease
Admiral

Members Avatar

672 Posts

Response Posted - 01/28/2005 : 18:37:29

I agree with Steve...no way. The guts of the article is "it smacks of a tax increase." Actually, it is a tax increase, especially if "it frees up some $3 million annually from the state's general fund, money that could then be applied to education or other important priorities".

Don't ya just love politicians..."other important priorities." This is their solution to everything...don't even think about reducing anything or cutting back on spending in one area and move the resources to another...just throw more money at it!!

I support no tax increases...period. If my 'personal' budget has a shortfall, and additional revenue (income) is not possible, I reduce spending or reallocate funds available. Our illustrious 'leaders' need to learn how to do the same thing.

Edited by - on

Charlie Vick
Captain

Members Avatar

USA
423 Posts

Response Posted - 01/28/2005 : 23:26:16

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by At Ease
 
Our illustrious 'leaders' need to learn how to do the same thing.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">It's an old cliche but, if they were made to run the government the way we have to run our lives, because of the government, they couldn't do it.
Plus they would be bankrupt within a month.
(Sorry, I just recieved my w-2's and 10-99's today and it alway puts me in a bad mood.)

OK, too close to politics.... run away, run away! (Monty Python)

Edited by - on

Stu Jackson C34
Admiral

Members Avatar

844 Posts

Response Posted - 01/29/2005 : 15:39:11

Shell Game for sure. What fiscal dire straits? Amazed at how many people still can't grasp the DC shell game: give tax cuts to people who surely won't be using the parks, dump on the people who will. Our taxes aren't a lot less, but we're sure getting a lot less for them. Cars payments to parks payments, that's a hoot. Just a smaller version of the DC shell game of cutting OUR "entitlements" (like parks are a special interest group that they just decided to ignore) and sending it all overseas or their friends. Taken a look at your local educational system lately? Ah, the beauty of trickle down economics.

(Not a sailboat related thread...?)

Edited by - on

Frank Hopper
Past Commodore

Members Avatar

Pitcairn Island
6776 Posts

Response Posted - 01/29/2005 : 17:47:13

Well... it was.

Wow, what a bunch of cynics.

I just hope that all marinas find funding. In Kansas there are so few watercraft that even with camping fees a user tax cannot provide enough money to support the parks. I thought it sounded ok.

I don't think a line item on the general ledger is going to get it anymore. There is a Rubicon on cuts and I think it is here for a lot of general fund expenditures.

What is protecting funding for where you sail? If it is a good idea I would be glad to pass it on to one of our legislators.

Edited by - on

Charlie Vick
Captain

Members Avatar

USA
423 Posts

Response Posted - 01/30/2005 : 01:10:42

Sorry Frank, didn't mean to be cynical.

Another idea, privatization or state run.

On Tenkiller the COE is over the lake and land surrounding the lake, from the shoreline up to a certan point. (I'm not sure how far up but it's to control the natural runoff into the lake and keep errosion to a minimum)
The State Park is the only park on the lake I know of which is state owned and run. I may be wrong though. Bert (At Ease) could probably correct me on this.

The cove I have a dock in has a beautiful campground which has been closed for the last 8-10 years because the owners have enough on their hands just keeping the marina and their cabins going. The state has nothing to do with it, besides COE regulations.

This is fine for people like me who only use the marina and the restaurant and keep our docks in the cove.

There are probably 40 really nice campsites in this area going unused because the owners of the marina and surrounding properties are unable to maintain them so the camping area is completely closed off and is used for storage. (Boat trailers, old styrofoam, new styrofoam, old dock parts, etc.)
There are other area's on the lake where the marina's are small but the surrounding parks are heavily used.
If the state owned this property surrounding where I keep my dock, the campgrounds might still be open for people to use and the marina might be suffering for lack of funds.
Privatization of lakes and the surrounding lands works well for some and not so well for others. Especially if you have developers coming in, unregulated, doing whatever they want.
I know this doesn't help you with your question, it just lets you know we are all in the same kind of Catch 22.
I just hope this lake and my dock are here for my son to enjoy in the future.

Edited by - on

Brooke Willson
Admiral

Members Avatar

USA
983 Posts

Response Posted - 01/30/2005 : 09:23:40

Sure, let's privatize everything. So the next time your boat is sinking and you call for help from the Coast Guard, they ask you first for your credit card number. The next time you have an auto accident, the State Police, Rescue Squad, and Emergency Room ask you to pay before you get help. Next September when you take your children to school, you discover the school's been privatized and you have to pay tuition. You discover there's a toll gate at the end of your driveway and you can't drive past it until you pay for the roads. And on, and on, and on. The dominant political philosophy for the last twenty-five years has been that all property is private, and the only duty of government is to "provide for the common defense" and protect "free" enterprise. The reality is that markets have never been free -- witness what would have happened if Exxon/Mobil had paid the bill for the first Gulf War, or Oscar's airline had to pay for the air traffic control system, or Microsoft were as accountable to anti-monopoly laws here as in Europe. This philosophy of government leaves out most of the Preamble to the Constitution and the whole notion of commonwealth.

So now we're discovering -- big surprise -- that the big tax cuts were in reality just shifted taxes. What used to be provided from the federal government now has to be covered by states and localities, whose taxes (as here in Virginia) are often REgressive -- the poor pay higher percentages of their income in tax than the wealthy. And -- who woulda thunk it -- most localities don't have those kind of revenues. But the beneficiaries of the tax cuts don't have to worry about those issues, because their children are in private schools, they can pay their insurance bills, and their retirement income will be more than they'll ever need. The whole notion of parks was to create places where the public, especially the poor who couldn't afford estates and vacations, could gather to meet and play. This, we used to believe, would help "insure domestic tranquillity" and "promote the general welfare." User fees defeat the whole idea.

We've sown the wind, and now we get to reap the whirlwind. Notice -- the same people who have historically opposed social security, government-assisted health care, and integrated public schools have learned their lessons well. They've realized they can't outright kill those programs, but they can slowly starve them to death. Constantly, incrementally, increase the expectations and slowly decrease the support: it's a highly effective technique, like the frog in the saucepan. What's happening to parks is part of the same agenda.

Edited by - Brooke Willson on 01/30/2005 18:07:11

Steve Milby
Past Commodore

Members Avatar

USA
5902 Posts

Response Posted - 01/30/2005 : 09:36:34

Why not calculate the additional funds needed to maintain and operate the parks, and factor in the cost of eliminating admission fees for residents of the state, and then ask for enough funds to cover those costs. In short, just ask for what is needed, and offer free admission to the taxpayers. I'd vote for it if asked.

Edited by - on

dlucier
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Virgin Islands (United Kingdom)
7583 Posts

Response Posted - 01/30/2005 : 10:26:15

My marina is part of 1,600 acre metropark that is part of a regional 24,000 acre public park system. The Metroparks are funded principally by a property tax levy and by revenues from vehicle entry fees and other user fees for various facilities such as golf courses and marinas.

Edited by - on

Champipple
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

USA
6855 Posts

Response Posted - 01/31/2005 : 09:14:26

There is talk of a $5.00 per car parking fee for Ohio's State parks. My Yacht club sits in the middle of Edgewater Park and uses the State's Parking Lot for over-flow parking on big race days, Holidays and for the major regatta's.

Supposedly Ohio is one of the few states left that doesn't charge parking.....It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out.

Edited by - on

dlucier
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Virgin Islands (United Kingdom)
7583 Posts

Response Posted - 01/31/2005 : 09:47:54

Because my marina lies within the Metropark, I have to purchase a $20.00 annual vehicle pass for each vehicle. If I have guests, most times I'll pick them up so they don't have to pay for parking, but sometimes I'll buy a $4.00 daily pass for guests.

Michigan charges residents $24.00 for an annual motor vehicle pass which allows vehicle access to the state parks. Additional charges for camping and other activites are extra. This puts the major funding for these parks on the people who actually use them.

Edited by - on

Charlie Vick
Captain

Members Avatar

USA
423 Posts

Response Posted - 01/31/2005 : 11:47:53

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by dlucier
 Because my marina lies within the Metropark, I have to purchase a $20.00 annual vehicle pass for each vehicle. If I have guests, most times I'll pick them up so they don't have to pay for parking, but sometimes I'll buy a $4.00 daily pass for guests.

Michigan charges residents $24.00 for an annual motor vehicle pass which allows vehicle access to the state parks. Additional charges for camping and other activites are extra. This puts the major funding for these parks on the people who actually use them.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Off topic but my company prints those permits for the Metroparks system!

Edited by - on

dlucier
Master Marine Consultant

Members Avatar

Virgin Islands (United Kingdom)
7583 Posts

Response Posted - 01/31/2005 : 12:21:56

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Charlie Vick
 ...my company prints those permits for the Metroparks system!

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Uhhh...can you get me a couple?

Edited by - dlucier on 01/31/2005 12:23:05

Ray Seitz
Captain

Members Avatar

USA
416 Posts

Response Posted - 01/31/2005 : 12:29:35

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">No way! <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"> I have to agree with Steve and others. The DNR in our state park currently charges a fee, at boat registration time and it does not seem to make our services any better. In fact we have to fight to get light bulbs replaced. Our mooring fees are reasonable but services are lacking. The reason always cited is we don't have the money/budget.
There are other ways that recreation taxes can and are levied that I have always considered fair and would support. The tax for sporting equipment like hunting and fishing items is collected under two acts Pitman-Robertson and Dengal-Johnson (I believe the names of the acts were longer). These acts direct these taxes directly to fish and wildlife and other related governing agencies that decide how to use these funds. Congress cannot touch these funds, that is to say they bypass general funds and go directly to the administrating agencies and ultimately the end users.
We discussed these acts when I was in college back in the late seventies so congress may have changed these two 30’s era acts but I don’t think so. I do recall congress at least once since I got out of school talking about getting their hands

on those funds.

Edited by - on

Topic

New Topic

Topic Locked

Printer Friendly

Jump To:

Association Forum

Notice: The advice given on this site is based upon individual or quoted experience, yours may differ.
The Officers, Staff and members of this site only provide information based upon the concept that anyone utilizing this information does so at their own risk and holds harmless all contributors to this site.