Privatize national park campgrounds, food trucks, senior discount blackout dates

[winniman]

I have seen contract management in the housing rental market. The one company I worked with had thousands of units they had contracted to manage. They did the very least of maintenance they could get away with. They basically ran the places into the ground. By the time their contract was up, the owners would have had to put many thousands into each unit to bring them back up to standards. The company put all the profits in their pockets, and walked away. The owners in this case would be the taxpayer. Once the contractor has milked every last dollar out of the system, they would hand a piece of junk back to the taxpayer.

[jayc2640]

Let's make this simple. The American people have a choice.

1. The people that go to the parks pay more in order for the parks to become self-sustaining (capitalism).

2. Taxes are raised for everyone to keep the attendance fees artificially low (socialism).

Capitalism or Socialism. Which do you prefer?

[HighDesert]

In an earlier post, a statement was made that "money taken in by the parks goes to the parks". According to park staff I have spoken with, money taken in goes to the government. The park system has no idea how much of the money they will get back in budget allocations. That is one problem. My biggest issue with privatizing parks is the next step to be mineral and oil extraction occurring. It is no secret that the current administration has zero regard for the environment or damages caused while change the money. If it actually a situation where private (non government) management took over the parks, and (some) concessions were allowed in - maybe not a bad thing. But, you have to ask yourself - what happens to all the park personnel, biologists, rangers, etc? Do they just fade away? I sincerely believe that you have to look at this with a long term viewpoint. And, if I cant get a reservation at a national park for a year in the future, and everything is booked up - where is the money going?? Apparently not back to the park system. Maybe it is just me, but I look at priviatizing national parks as opening the lid to Pandora's Box.

[Ken Thompson]

Originally Posted by winniman

The land belongs to the people. The govt have an obligation to keep it accessible for all to use, not just the rich people. Private contractors means for profit, which means higher prices. The govts seem to have money for every other stupid thing, why not take care of the public resources. I went to the National Forest at Mount Washington. They charged us about $60 dollars US to drive up the mountain. You guessed it, private contractor. We were in Acadia NP the week before. $32 for a week pass to enter the park. You guessed it, not a private contractor.

As you may or may not know, the government is only good at taking money. They are terrible at using it wisely. If most everything the government does was privatized, it would be done cheaper and better. Just look at what a disaster Obama care is.

[Ken Thompson]

Originally Posted by grindstone01

Do you know of any case where privatization actually became less expensive for the using public?? As others have called out, privatization adds another layer called profit that Gov doesn't have. We don't need history to repeat itself again under the pretense of saving $$. Gov may waste $$, but at least they don't have $22M/year salaries for one executive (GM).

No, they have a lot of them!

[Orionfe]

Originally Posted by wildtoad

People clamor for more free stuff, better roads, rebuild infrastructure, lower medical costs, lower drug costs, lower housing costs, improve schools (public ones), lower fees for national parks, and the list just keeps getting bigger. Now we here we need free secondary education, forgive all school debt, Medicare for all, and this list keeps getting bigger. REGARDLESS of what side of the ledger you sit, what I don’t hear is the populace at large clamoring to pay more in taxes to support it. It’s OK if someone else pays for it, but not me....

A public/private arrangement for running the concessions, stores, camping facilities could be a good idea. You can visit the parks all day long, and you have a choice if you want to partake of the stores, camping, recreational options that may be available. Continuing to run things at a loss is a bad idea.

It just reinforces my opinion that anything the government actively manages and runs turns out to be an abortion.
The govt can, and should probably look at, contracting this out to be a non profit agreement for say a five year period and see how it goes. Anybody, but the govt, running it for a fixed amount funded by the govt may be the better way to go. Let them compete.

[Davemik]

Originally Posted by DRM901

I'm confused. You want to pay little to use the parks, but we know the revenue is not covering their maintenance & admin costs. Hence, private firms charge more so they do cover their costs. Yes they also are making some profit, but the main driver of the price difference is maintenance costs. Federal money is printed, but only at a cost to all who pay taxes.

I think it far more likely most of the difference in cost goes to fat profits for the private corporations. Let's shift even more money to the wealthy!

[F4Gary]

Originally Posted by katydid

So sad, hate to see food trucks, vendors, and reductions in discounts and blackout dates at our national parks. New committee was formed to push this.

What's wrong with food trucks? I've had some great food off of food trucks.
Sure beats some to the crappy food I've had at Park cafeterias.

[twogypsies]

Originally Posted by HighDesert

In an earlier post, a statement was made that "money taken in by the parks goes to the parks". According to park staff I have spoken with, money taken in goes to the government. The park system has no idea how much of the money they will get back in budget allocations. That is one problem.

The entrance fee money stays in the parks. If a particular park doesn't have an entrance fee the other parks donate to it.

https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/fees-at-work.htm

[twogypsies]

Originally Posted by F4Gary

What's wrong with food trucks? I've had some great food off of food trucks.
Sure beats some to the crappy food I've had at Park cafeterias.

To me,food trucks all over the parks would give a carnival-type atmosphere. The parks need to keep a 'natural' feeling although that is also difficult to keep with the hotels and masses of people but every little bit helps.

[richard5933]

Originally Posted by jayc2640

Let's make this simple. The American people have a choice.

1. The people that go to the parks pay more in order for the parks to become self-sustaining (capitalism).

2. Taxes are raised for everyone to keep the attendance fees artificially low (socialism).

Capitalism or Socialism. Which do you prefer?

This is a false statement. There are lots of things we use tax funds for that not everyone uses, but we don't call them socialism.

Take the roads as the first example. Would you say that having public roads is socialism? Or capitalism? I'd say it's neither - I'd say that it's us as a community deciding that having paved roads is a good thing, pooling our dollars together, and then using that money to pave the road.

Or how about public schools? To me, it's neither socialism or capitalism. It's us deciding that having stupid kids running around is a bad idea and then doing something about it.

Where do people get the idea that every last thing in a capitalistic society has to make a profit or be privately owned to be worth doing?

Originally Posted by lbfjrmd

+ 1 for privatization! the pros outweigh the cons.

What are the pros of privatizing public parks which were bought and paid for with public funds?

For that matter, where did we get the notion that everything in our country has to pay for itself?

Do you really think that your fuel taxes and vehicle taxes pay the full cost of operating the roads and bridges in our country? If not for funds coming from the overall tax base you wouldn't be driving your RV very far without paying through the nose for every mile in tolls. We drive on roads which are heavily subsidized through tax revenue, and I don't hear anyone calling that socialism.

You want true capitalism, then we have to start charging every company the full and true cost for every mile they travel on publicly owned roads. Every bridge they cross, and for every stop light that keeps them from having a collision. Might as well charge every driver the full cost for that matter. No more handouts, right?

We would have to start charging for every police call, for every fire department run, and for every time any civil service worker does anything.

I get tired of people claiming that having anything publicly funded equals socialism. We have the things we have which are publicly funded because we, as a society, determined that they are good for society. That's not socialism, it's not capitalism, it's just us deciding that some things are worth paying for. Back to the subject of this thread, I believe one of those things worth paying for is public parks which are to be for the benefit of everyone.

[momcat]

I feel like the Govt might have the money. BUT....The way they divide it among all the 3rd world countries, people who put no money into the pot, and just some other form of welfare, there is not enough left for the Parks. I feel like it is just another way the honest , working, paying taxpayer gets screwed . MOMCAT

[StanD]

Originally Posted by twogypsies

The entrance fee money stays in the parks. If a particular park doesn't have an entrance fee the other parks donate to it.

https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/fees-at-work.htm

Really? Maybe that's not what happens in all parks in all States. It's my understanding, please correct me if I'm wrong, that in Washington State the moneys generated from the parks goes into the General Fund. That money used to be to run the parks. Guess what happens when you give a pot of money to a politician? So now, to help generate more money you have to buy a Discovery Pass just to set foot on any State land. Then to top it off they attached a $5.00 fee to the cost of your auto license tabs to help make up for the shortfall. It's supposed to go to the Parks Dept. You can opt out of the $5.00 it you happen to notice it's there.
Maybe improved stewardship is what we need and maybe we need to keep the money generated by the parks in the parks.

[elliott-maine]

Originally Posted by winniman

The land belongs to the people. The govt have an obligation to keep it accessible for all to use, not just the rich people. Private contractors means for profit, which means higher prices. The govts seem to have money for every other stupid thing, why not take care of the public resources. I went to the National Forest at Mount Washington. They charged us about $60 dollars US to drive up the mountain. You guessed it, private contractor. We were in Acadia NP the week before. $32 for a week pass to enter the park. You guessed it, not a private contractor.

The Mt. Washington Carriage Road (1861)and the Cog Railway (1869) are bad examples for you to use. They were built by and have been operated private concerns since before the park was there. Both are high maintenance operations and thus require income.


Be careful to know what you are talking about. Yes, the road (now the Auto Road) is costly $31 for driver and car and $9 for other adults, but I find it worth the trip. I have left the valley at 91 degrees and hit the summit in the snow, so it can be an interesting trip.