Today's Seattle Times reports on a proposal to eliminate the state park day use parking fees "Mandatory charge no walk in the park for recreation lovers". The argument being that attendance at state parks has dropped since the fee was instituted 3 years ago. Is that a bug, or a feature? I like using our state parks and I feel good about paying the nominal fee of $5 a day to park my car. I even buy an annual permit even if I don't necessarily expect it to save me money. It's a reasonable user fee, a very good deal compared to other forms of recreation and most importantly it helps pay for maintenance, improvements and mitigation of the wear and tear caused by visitors. It's also the most reasonable way to ration scarce parking spots. It's only fair for those of us who use the parks to contribute to their upkeep. I hardly think it's fair to raise taxes on others, who might prefer to spend their leisure time differently than I do, in order to susbsidize my own chosen form of recreation.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 01, 2006 10:43 AM | Email ThisIt's only fair for those of us who use the parks to contribute to their upkeep. I hardly think it's fair to raise taxes on others, who might prefer to spend their leisure time differently than I do, in order to susbsidize my own chosen form of recreation.
I would be very surprised if public parks are supported solely by usage fees. I'll bet general revenues are allocated to them, which means we all pay for them whether we use them or not.
I do not like park usage fees. They tend to squeeze out the lower middle class. The expense of paying usage fees means nothing to the wealthy, and the poor generally have scholarships available. Those in the middle, who refuse government handouts, but do not feel they can afford the usage fees, are the ones who can get left out.
Public parks should be for everyone, or for no one.
Posted by: huckleberry on February 1, 2006 11:13 AMState park fees are akin in my eye to fund raising drives my kids have at school. They want me to buy magazines or candy or whatever to fund activities in the school. Well geeze... what am I paying for with my taxes? Are my taxes not enough to get the job done? If not, why? Bureacracy? Bloat? More than likely. Let's take care of those before you insist on digging deeper into my wallet.
Posted by: Unknown User on February 1, 2006 11:19 AMFirst mind: I don't mind paying a fee because a small fee keeps the "riffraff" out. Nothing ruins a day at the park like a bunch of drunks screaming and yelling obscenities and trashing the rest rooms. It’s pretty clear that rowdy drunks generally want to put $5 toward beer not park fees.
Second mind: Then again, our taxes are supposed to be so that we can use the parks fee-free. It used to be that way, why not now? Because more and more taxes are being diverted to transfer payments. In other words, politicians giving our tax money to a preferred group. And that is not right. My taxes are doing less and less for me (and where I live) and being given more and more to others. Bad poo poo.
So help me out here. Fees mean cleaner, nicer, less over-used parks. No fees and everybody in the world will be using them and all of the bizarre behavior (and maintenance) that brings.
Parks are part of what makes Seattle/King County great. As much as I hate the liberal viewpoint of spewing money at every project, I do feel that children need free space to roam in, to learn how to make mud pies in, to eat dirt and bugs in, to throw sticks to dogs, and all of those carfree enjoyments you are supposed to be entitled to when you are young. Perhaps because I wasn't privvy to the same priveleges when I was young (I am adopted)... I want my son to have parks to discover wildlife in, to play soccer and baseball and perhaps even football in. I am willing to accept the burden of the cost of that as I would bet most people in the Pacific Northwest are. That being said, imposing a user fee for something that was previously funded is wrong, primarily because it USED to be paid for - where'd the money go?
Infrastructure costs money, but when people see something for their money it is money well spent.
Posted by: Aaron on February 1, 2006 12:06 PMPark fees are similar to school levies and fire/emergency medical bond issues. State and local governments force us to pay the extra "on-top" fees and levies....for the stuff we need and want....while they deal off the bottom to pay for all the giveway programs and offices filled with bureaucratic idiots shuffling the same e-mails back and forth when not attending the same pointless, all-day meetings.
If they gave you a choice, what would you pay for?
Enviro-nuts performing endless impact studies? Land-use commisioners who'd get lost without On-Star? Queen Christine's bloated staff?....or parks and firemen?
On the other hand, perhaps OVERNIGHT park users, those using cooking areas or those using covered areas should pay more. Those folks are more likely to be littering or otherwise impacting the park to a greater extent than a couple of kids playing tag.
Or... since they're already monitoring parking fees somehow, maybe the first hour or two should be free (tag the tires with chalk) and THEN impose the $5 fee.
Posted by: Mark on February 1, 2006 12:24 PMI'm quite sure that tax money can be diverted from some boondoggle to pay for upkeep.
Posted by: H Moul on February 1, 2006 12:29 PMI don't go to our parks, but I still like the idea of a free park system. Often people go to the parks because they can't afford to go to the more touristy places.
Gerald
Posted by: Gerald on February 1, 2006 12:30 PMDude - I would have to disagree with you on the left wanting everything free. I would have to say everything except using your car. Need to use public transportation. Parking fees good.
Posted by: fred on February 1, 2006 12:35 PMBefore Many folks stopped and looked at the wonderful view.
After Just about empty or maybe 25% compared to before. Paying $5 FOR A 15 MINUTE STOP is not worth it. If they had any brains it should have been a dollar for 30 minutes. We were surprised the tax hungry liberals didn't charge kids in the back seats to look out into the Straits.
Posted by: keb on February 1, 2006 12:51 PM... I do feel that children need free space to roam in, to learn how to make mud pies in, to eat dirt and bugs in, to throw sticks to dogs, and all of those carfree enjoyments you are supposed to be entitled to when you are young. [...] I want my son to have parks to discover wildlife in, to play soccer and baseball and perhaps even football in.
You're just being selfish. Buy the kids a video game system.
/sarcasmoff
That is discriminatory pricing. The state already has plenty of tourist taxes, does that mean that out-of-staters should get discounts on things as they pay the tax. An example is the additional sales tax charged on car rentals at Seatac to help fund the stadium. Should out-of-staters get a discount at the games as they are paying more for it than locals?
Discriminatory pricing is illegal in the private sector. What a surprise that the people that make the rules exempt themselves from them!
Posted by: fred on February 1, 2006 01:20 PMThe mere idea of a "Wilderness Access Fee" is still a household joke in our family; as we hail from Alaska; where the idea of such a thing would cause endless mirth.
Improved campgrounds are another thing entirely; someone has to come clean the toilets and police the rowdies; that I understand.
But a fee to access unimproved areas or urban parks?
Sounds to me like we're being double charged.
If not, it is just like the car tab debate a few years ago; the money that came out of that program targeted so many things that it was clearly the most efficient use of public money ever devised.
Or someone isn't being fully truthful.
Dear reader, I'll leave that determination up to you.
But a fee to access unimproved areas or urban parks?
Wait, doesn't someone come to clean the public parks as well? Many public parks have restrooms that also require attention. As for rowdies, they exist in all parks, fee or not, and if those fees help police them or better yet keep them out, fine by me.
I can't argue with those that want money that is going elsewhere to pay for this instead. I'm sure there is some drunk housing or diversity promotion program somewhere that can be cut to pay for it. But good luck trying to get this government to do it.
The libs just just don't understand domino effects.
I think the annual pass is a good way to go. Drops your per visit costs as it favors locals with greater access. Out-of-staters on vacation would pay the premium to see the Canuck geese.
Posted by: MB on February 1, 2006 05:16 PM2) Many of these parks (and launch ramps, don't forget the extra fees for water access) were built as mitigation for dams and other public projects that took up state land -- mitigation that stipulates free access for all.
3) This is a consequence of what I call General Fund Disorder. Money that was earmarked for parks has disappeared into other programs, yet our sales tax hasn't gone down any. So we end up getting hit up again for their upkeep via fees.
Posted by: Starboardhelm on February 1, 2006 05:42 PMkeb: you mean to tell me people have to pay to walk on the bridge? Unreal. We've camped out at Bowman's Bay for years and hiked to the bridge--never realized the people we joined were getting ripped off to the tune of five bucks. Camping overnight is one thing--a short jog or stop to take in a view is another.
Posted by: Organization Man on February 1, 2006 06:44 PMAs a number of posters have pointed out, these parks were bought and paid for with our tax dollars; the 5$ fee costs nearly as much to collect as it raises in revenue.
I live near a State Recreation Area that is frequently used by sport anglers and others; what many do is park outside the boundries and walk in. Duh!
I enjoy our parks and am willing to pay for them, but not twice. Sadly, my casual use has dropped considerably as a result of this fee.
Posted by: Shaun on February 1, 2006 07:25 PMIt was the LEFT who imposed this ridiculous park fee.....
Does anyone really believe these $5.00 fees are going toward the upkeep and maintenance of our state parks? Puleease! They go right into the Dem machine's kitty...
Our taxes have been allocated for park maintenance. This additional fee is just a perk for the liberals in charge of the state. When you purchase a fishing or hunting license - included in the price is a parking permit..but we have been told that we must also pay the $5.00 park fee in addition to our parking permit!
Many of our so-called state parks are just meth factories and pervert hangouts anymore. The parking enforcement officers will ignore the drugs and pervs and concentrate on those evil families who forget or neglect to pay that $5.00 fee!
I remember the first year they imposed the fee. We were on the coast and decided to visit a lighthouse in Long Beach. There were no signs that stated there would be a fee, no signs that said the lighthouse was a State park... The Lighthouse was closed that summer for repairs and we found this out only after walking a mile or so from the parking area. When we returned to our cars - a State Patrol officer on a motorcycle was busy writing tickets to everyone who parked in the small lot. We approached him to see what was going on and he asked which vehicle we belonged to. We showed him our rental car and he asked if we were from out of state. We told him we were residents of the state and he said we had one minute to cough up the $5.00 fee and gestured over to a flimsy little box to put it in with a paper that listed our vehicle description and license plate number....(anyone could have walked off with the box...) I told him he should post a sign to alert visitors that the lighthouse was closed for the summer so they wouldn't waste their time and money! He said that would be the Parks departments job! I told him that they should be able to afford a "Closed" sign with all of the money they suckered visitors out of that day...
You would be amazed at what has been designated a "State Park" these days - just for the sake of that $5.00 fee!
Posted by: Deborah on February 1, 2006 07:38 PMAt the time the parking fee was adopted in 2002, by the way, Washington was the only state in the West that did not charge for day use of parks.
Posted by: jsa on February 1, 2006 10:38 PMAdditionally, it isn't at all clear down here that the fees collected even cover the cost of collection at many of the smaller parks. I think I come down on the "no fee" side...fees tend to keep out the less affluent, provision of parks should be among the core services of government, and at least down here, spotty enforcement has had no measurable effect on the incidence of boorish and drunken behavior.
Posted by: Bill on February 2, 2006 11:59 AM