Originally Posted by
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.