privatization of state parks (Alabama)

[swisscross]

Alabama has an Amendment attached to the national election concerning the funding of our state parks.

https://ballotpedia.org/Alabama_Rule...ndment_2_(2016)

What is your opinion / experience with the privatization of state parks in your state?
Is this a good idea?

I am sort of torn as the funding is not there and our fine (not so) government has already closed five parks with many more slated to be closed. If something is not done, we will lose them.
Promoting their use would help or solve the financial issues as the majority of funding comes from the visitors.

Thank you all for your insight.

[Secondmouse]

there is nothing, short of national defense, that a private company can't do better/faster/cheaper than gov't. and even that is debatable...

[Sarcasm the elf]

there is nothing, short of national defense, that a private company can't do better/faster/cheaper than gov't. and even that is debatable...

Correct, private companies are much better at a lot of things such as at chasing short term profits, laying off worker, taking away benefits, outsourcing, reducing services and declaring bankruptcy than the government could ever be.

Have you looked at what happens when private companies take over for the governemnt? Nearly every example I have seen is little more than broken promises of cost savings and reduced services. Just look at chsrter schools, prisons, the private parking and toll contracts in the Chicago area, or the concession companies who are trying to claim trademark rights over the national parks. I'm not saying this as a political argument, simply stating that when objectively compared private companies don't automatically do a better job when taking over services that were provided by the public sector.

[Feral Bill]

Correct, private companies are much better at a lot of things such as at chasing short term profits, laying off worker, taking away benefits, outsourcing, reducing services and declaring bankruptcy than the government could ever be.

Have you looked at what happens when private companies take over for the governemnt? Nearly every example I have seen is little more than broken promises of cost savings and reduced services. Just look at chsrter schools, prisons, the private parking and toll contracts in the Chicago area, or the concession companies who are trying to claim trademark rights over the national parks. I'm not saying this as a political argument, simply stating that when objectively compared private companies don't automatically do a better job when taking over services that were provided by the public sector.

What he said.

[yaduck9]

Correct, private companies are much better at a lot of things such as at chasing short term profits, laying off worker, taking away benefits, outsourcing, reducing services and declaring bankruptcy than the government could ever be.

Have you looked at what happens when private companies take over for the governemnt? Nearly every example I have seen is little more than broken promises of cost savings and reduced services. Just look at chsrter schools, prisons, the private parking and toll contracts in the Chicago area, or the concession companies who are trying to claim trademark rights over the national parks. I'm not saying this as a political argument, simply stating that when objectively compared private companies don't automatically do a better job when taking over services that were provided by the public sector.

......................+1

[Offshore]

Correct, private companies are much better at a lot of things such as at chasing short term profits, laying off worker, taking away benefits, outsourcing, reducing services and declaring bankruptcy than the government could ever be.

Have you looked at what happens when private companies take over for the governemnt? Nearly every example I have seen is little more than broken promises of cost savings and reduced services. Just look at chsrter schools, prisons, the private parking and toll contracts in the Chicago area, or the concession companies who are trying to claim trademark rights over the national parks. I'm not saying this as a political argument, simply stating that when objectively compared private companies don't automatically do a better job when taking over services that were provided by the public sector.

+1 Thank you - you saved me a lot of writing. Privatization is nothing more than a means of funneling public dollars into private hands.

[FreeGoldRush]

there is nothing, short of national defense, that a private company can't do better/faster/cheaper than gov't. and even that is debatable...

Clearly that is correct, but it can't be used as an excuse to give away our state parks. Government screws up often and I'm sure that transferring control of state parks to private hands will be no exception. It gets complicated. Are they going to sell the land? Who gets to bid on the land sale? How will the money be used? What restrictions will there be on the use of the land? And remember there is absolutely no way to prevent the change of those restrictions in the future.

Maybe this is only about hiring private contractors to maintain state parks. That would likely be positive.

I like this solution best: Stop wasting taxpayer money on crap that is designed to keep people in their position of political power. Instead, spend that money on stuff we actually use, like state parks.

[Rain Man]

there is nothing, short of national defense, that a private company can't do better/faster/cheaper than gov't. and even that is debatable...

You can have fast and cheap ... or good and worthwhile.

[theinfamousj]

there is nothing, short of national defense, that a private company can't do better/faster/cheaper than gov't. and even that is debatable...

But at what cost?

I went to a Government Funded (everyone had a 100% scholarship including room and board) boarding high school which was then contracted to a private contractor to do the "board"/food stuff. And sure it was cheaper. But the food was nigh inedible brown slop, very few fresh vegetables, and only the cheapest of foods such as rice and waffle batter were tolerable. Cheaper than had the government run the cafeteria to be sure. Because the government would have provided growing children with vegetables and those are more expensive than canned brown slop.

As a result of that, I am wary of always going the cheapest route. If the quality is the same, then no need to overpay. But let's make sure that the administration of these parks isn't going to be a reduction in quality for users in order for the company to still manage a profit at that price before worshipping the bottom line, shall we?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

[lambsknoll]

there is nothing, short of national defense, that a private company can't do better/faster/cheaper than gov't. and even that is debatable...

Totally! What have the Romans ever done for us?

[Sarcasm the elf]

Totally! What have the Romans ever done for us?

For starters they gave us toga parties!



Togas.jpeg

[rocketsocks]

Totally! What have the Romans ever done for us?

For starters they gave us toga parties!



Togas.jpeg

...and noodles XXL

[Traveler]

there is nothing, short of national defense, that a private company can't do better/faster/cheaper than gov't. and even that is debatable...

Evidence tends to demonstrate the opposite, there is little to no difference between government and private sector operations for things like this. The difference being, government is accountable to the public through FOI and various layers of elected/appointed committees and responsible departments. There is an old adage that one can have any two of better, faster, cheaper, but not all three, most instances of privatization illustrate this pretty well.

Myself, I would prefer shuttering parks that States do not want to support (this is a political will issue overall) as opposed to selling them off. They can be reopened, they cannot be repurchased easily. The other avenue would be legislation limiting liability and allowing volunteer groups to keep parks open (or the trails accessible and open if nothing else). That would probably be the win/win solution.

[rafe]

The other avenue would be legislation limiting liability and allowing volunteer groups to keep parks open (or the trails accessible and open if nothing else). That would probably be the win/win solution.

This is the AT model, no? Federal ownership and top-level management, but the bulk of the ongoing maintenance and infrastructure provided by volunteers, overseen by trail clubs. Whatever they're doing, they're mostly doing it right.

[Traveler]

This is the AT model, no? Federal ownership and top-level management, but the bulk of the ongoing maintenance and infrastructure provided by volunteers, overseen by trail clubs. Whatever they're doing, they're mostly doing it right.

For the most part yes, though with State parks there are roadways, parking, and sanitary facilities that make it a little more complex. But overall very similar.

[DuneElliot]

NO! Our situation is slightly different, but has similar outcomes. Our Rep. candidate wants to make all Federal lands in the state come under the management of the state. When it comes down to funding we'd be broke in a few years with the costs of wildfires and other expenditures. Wyoming is one of the few states that has a balanced budget, isn't in debt up to their eyeballs and has a rainy-day fund...we'd lose all that.

Public lands need to stay public-owned for the enjoyment of all. I'm even okay with some places needing to implement an daily/weekly/annual fee card (like the NPs) to help offset costs to keep the trails open and maintained...so many I've recently discovered are overgrown and not kept up, and thus easy to get lost.

[Sarcasm the elf]

NO! Our situation is slightly different, but has similar outcomes. Our Rep. candidate wants to make all Federal lands in the state come under the management of the state. When it comes down to funding we'd be broke in a few years with the costs of wildfires and other expenditures. Wyoming is one of the few states that has a balanced budget, isn't in debt up to their eyeballs and has a rainy-day fund...we'd lose all that.

Public lands need to stay public-owned for the enjoyment of all. I'm even okay with some places needing to implement an daily/weekly/annual fee card (like the NPs) to help offset costs to keep the trails open and maintained...so many I've recently discovered are overgrown and not kept up, and thus easy to get lost.

To your point, Ammoland has been writing about this recently (thanks TTS for mentioning this in the podcast) I was glad to read that such a conservatives news source is also acknowledging how bad an idea this is.



http://www.ammoland.com/2016/10/stat...?client=safari

[Tundracamper]

Either it's a state park operated and funded by the state or it's a private (i.e. for profit) park. What do you want?

[Another Kevin]

The link doesn't work.

As you describe the proposal, it could range anywhere from delegating the park operations to concessionaires, while leaving control in the hands of the state, to selling the land to developers in fee simple. The former is Mostly Harmless - many states contract out some, if not all, park operations. The latter is, of course, a disaster - destroying the parks entirely.

Lately, this sort of thing comes up during every budget squabble. It's because parks are the most visible item of discretionary spending. People have all visited them - it's a government service that virtually everyone has enjoyed. And yet, it's fundamentally at odds with the peculiar American work ethic. Having time to spend in a park, and access to one, is a luxury, and, whenever a budget comes up, one side tells us that luxuries are something that nobody can afford!

"The funding is not there" together with "the majority of funding comes from visitors" sounds like a bit of an inconsistency. To me, it's politicians saying, "we are not willing to consider parks to be a public good, and are therefore not willing to allocate money from the public coffers to operate them. Nevertheless, we are not willing to adjust prices to a level where they will be self-sustaining." This policy is, no doubt, a mandate from the electorate. You can't both accept the premise that state parks are a public good for the citizenry, while simultaneously stating that the state ought not to fund them.

At least, a closed park can be reopened when people come to their senses. A park that has been sold to a private developer is lost forever.

[Just Bill]

Alabama has an Amendment attached to the national election concerning the funding of our state parks.

https://ballotpedia.org/Alabama_Rule...ndment_2_(2016)

What is your opinion / experience with the privatization of state parks in your state?
Is this a good idea?

I am sort of torn as the funding is not there and our fine (not so) government has already closed five parks with many more slated to be closed. If something is not done, we will lose them.
Promoting their use would help or solve the financial issues as the majority of funding comes from the visitors.

Thank you all for your insight.

Not a "federal transfer issue back to state control question" for those that missed that...
And stop hogging all the "S's" Swisscross

Though I agree- if land is in federal hands- nobody will agree on anything to quickly so best to keep it there... if a state gets a big enough bug up their butt during a temporary crisis or surge in political will; a fire sale on land is the whole reason we have federal lands in the first place.

there is nothing, short of national defense, that a private company can't do better/faster/cheaper than gov't. and even that is debatable...

By that metric yes... but I'm with others; there are some government services that cannot be measured by those metrics or are government funded precisely because they are a service and not-profitable... as Elf covers below.

Correct, private companies are much better at a lot of things such as at chasing short term profits, laying off worker, taking away benefits, outsourcing, reducing services and declaring bankruptcy than the government could ever be.

Have you looked at what happens when private companies take over for the governemnt? Nearly every example I have seen is little more than broken promises of cost savings and reduced services. Just look at chsrter schools, prisons, the private parking and toll contracts in the Chicago area, or the concession companies who are trying to claim trademark rights over the national parks. I'm not saying this as a political argument, simply stating that when objectively compared private companies don't automatically do a better job when taking over services that were provided by the public sector.

The link doesn't work.

As you describe the proposal, it could range anywhere from delegating the park operations to concessionaires, while leaving control in the hands of the state, to selling the land to developers in fee simple. The former is Mostly Harmless - many states contract out some, if not all, park operations. The latter is, of course, a disaster - destroying the parks entirely.

Lately, this sort of thing comes up during every budget squabble. It's because parks are the most visible item of discretionary spending. People have all visited them - it's a government service that virtually everyone has enjoyed. And yet, it's fundamentally at odds with the peculiar American work ethic. Having time to spend in a park, and access to one, is a luxury, and, whenever a budget comes up, one side tells us that luxuries are something that nobody can afford!

"The funding is not there" together with "the majority of funding comes from visitors" sounds like a bit of an inconsistency. To me, it's politicians saying, "we are not willing to consider parks to be a public good, and are therefore not willing to allocate money from the public coffers to operate them. Nevertheless, we are not willing to adjust prices to a level where they will be self-sustaining." This policy is, no doubt, a mandate from the electorate. You can't both accept the premise that state parks are a public good for the citizenry, while simultaneously stating that the state ought not to fund them.

At least, a closed park can be reopened when people come to their senses. A park that has been sold to a private developer is lost forever.

Illinois, which I recently fled... has been closing parks now for several years. But there is little to no talk of selling them thankfully.
I would accept closure of a park for lack of funding. I would never accept simply selling a property though... and I would imagine we are not to far away from some "brilliant" lawmaker arriving at the "logical" argument via creative accounting that if we simply sold one property it would pay to keep nine properties "open".

I can almost see the headline... we have negotiated a deal to keep 90% of the parks open, which after the deal goes through will mean that 100% of the state property in question will be open... please vote for me on the 8th!"

My definition of open is permanently preserved. If there are additional services that's fine... but if the land is preserved for a better day financially that costs nothing and I would be fine with such austerity measures if needed.

The Will County Forest Preserve in Illinois closes all it's parks in the winter to save money on snow plowing operations as one fine example of a temporary closure for budget reasons. If they tried to plow it would blow the budget for the year; so fair trade in my opinion.

The Cook County Forest Preserve (Chicago) has one of the more extensive forest preserve systems in the country, though none of it open to (legal) camping until very recently. After many years of begging and pleading someone did realize they could further monetize those assets through some development and six such sites have recently been opened for business. Unfortunately sites run from $35-$60+ per night so not exactly camping friendly budgets for most here who are used to paying free-ninety-nine. http://fpdcc.com/camping/ However... many people here are very exited about it and plan to use the sites. And people who wouldn't normally camp are camping.

I have also watched many things in Chicago and Crook county be sold off and/or privatized. If the government (with no tax burdens, mortgage/rent or lease to pay) cannot make money then simple accounting tells me that some serious slashing/burning or rate raising will be needed for a private company to make a profit and pay taxes and rent. This is basically what Elf also mentioned happening... some decent income jobs were cut for crap jobs, services provided went down, and rates paid went up. So while some companies are well run... some public service/sector accounting never makes sense. If it did; I find it hard to believe that someone in the land of opportunity has not found a way to make a buck off it. Often the only profitable benefit to the public good to occur is the one that involves a company agent bribing a public official.

One funny example being the Cook county FP golf courses; which were so miserably unprofitable because of the summer help the county workers hired stealing all the money from the till. So the solution was to privatize them. A few of the courses did just fine as it was the county superiors who were the ones encouraging (and taking their cut) which was the reason for the extremely high level of theft. All they had to do was remove the county workers supervising the summer help, which also resulted in many unhappy county supervisors who suddenly were short pocket change and had no real need to be employed. On the flipside; Another course sued the FP for misrepresenting the expected incomes (which the FP estimated based upon who knows what as they claimed all the money was stolen) when in fact the simple matter was that nobody used that particular course much and the private company was able to break their lease and get paid for their trouble as a result of the poor attendance. So all the profitable courses were privatized and all the unprofitable ones required settlements to take back as the agreements were signed on a property by property basis.

The point being... the parks in all cases were still state owned properties preserved for their intended purpose- only the management was sold.
Illinois State Parks are sitting there waiting for a better day (or even for them to simply pass a budget so they can be funded as Illinois is not really as broke as it seems).

Cook County Properties have sat forever and suddenly they are now open but not for lack of funding- but to raise money for the county.
Ironically it was a new county board president who chased out many of the corrupt employees... which solved a good bit of the "budget crisis" in much the same way not stabbing yourself in the back often prevents bleeding to death.

As Kevin said, people, politicians, political will and financial "crisis" come and go... so long as the land is there safe, sound and in the public trust; it will find public use and value again.

If nothing else... it is highly likely in my son's lifetime that America's preserved lands will become (after water) the most valuable resource on the planet. So if you want dollars and cents... the rest of our balance sheet is nothing to be too proud of and that massive asset sitting down towards the bottom is appreciating in value at a staggering rate and will likely eclipse our national debt in value several times over in the next generation or two at most.