California Parks, Use Fees, and Cost-Neutrality*
Posted at 4:37 pm on Tuesday, June 16, 2009, in California, and tagged california.
Although the state of California is the seventh- or tenth-largest economy in the world, depending on when and what measure you read, and therefore the most important economy within the United States, and although the federal government has rescued investment banks, insurance companies and car manufacturers, as a result of behavior that all parties have unanimously considered reckless, the federal government will not aid California in one of its darkest hours. The legislature — and to a lesser extent, the California governor — is to blame.
In an effort to close the budget deficit — on the order of $24 billion — the governor has proposed a series of cuts to social services, and the closing of nearly all of the state parks. The threats have worked (again). The park system is widely used and cherished in California, and their threatened blanket closing has stirred up activity in an increasingly dysfunctional legislature. A new plan laid forth includes a $15 surcharge added to the vehicle license fee (which, in California, is paid annually) to keep the parks open. I think it is a good idea, but it will undoubtedly be seen as a tax (because it is). When finances go sour, fees should increase, but they should be related to the services desired, not a blanket all-purposes fee that serves only one purpose. That is why I would advocate increasing use fees at the parks.
Camping parks and beaches should be a cost-neutral operation. Sure, some years will be worse than others, but over time, with all else being equal, the trend should be cost-neutral. My wife and I use the state parks often. We always have a few camping trips on the horizon, and we visit the state beaches every weekend that we are able to, if only to give our dog a taste of the sweet life. But we should (and do, if necessary) pay for that access. Most beaches in California offer free parking. This is a great incentive to visit, but a $1 fee wouldn’t hurt either. I’m sure that I wouldn’t say no to a trip to the beach — which already includes a $4 toll, $15 worth of gas, and an hour drive — because of $1 parking. That is a start.
Also: camping is cheap; it is supposed to be. A reservation at a campground in Lake Tahoe runs you from $15 to $25 per night. That easily could be doubled, if only for the year, if only to allow those willing to pay the increased fee to spend the night beneath the stars in the Sierra Nevada. Additionally, all camp sites are treated equal within a campground, when anyone that has ever been camping knows that that is not the case. You want to be on the fringe, a few sites away from the restrooms (but not too far), with ample trees for shade, a nice view, etc. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on the lottery system for campsite reservations), all sites cost the same. If campgrounds took the initiative and scaled their prices of sites on individual merits (similar to hotel rooms), I am sure that people would pay for what they get. A basic site is $10, but a deluxe away from the restroom with a fire pit overlooking Emerald Bay is $45. What do you say, honey? If anything, raise the rates this year only — and keep the parks open. The operation only needs to be cost-neutral; it doesn’t need to run a profit.
Although some may say that increased fees for camping would decrease visitorship, I’d say that the closing of parks would also decrease visitorship, and closing the parks would only save $100 million (out of a $24 billion deficit). Although some would say that increased fees for camping and parking at beaches is a tax on the poor, I’d say so is the vehicle license fee, which everyone has to pay, and in a state wary of increased taxes, use fees are a better option. Gas taxes should pay for highway repairs, but bridge tolls should help the cause; the analogy fits the scenario. And as many state services as possible, especially in lean or deficit years, should run cost-neutral, starting with the enviable California parks system
* Quite possibly the most literal post title I have ever used.
- Duplicity Duplicity at its finest… Modoc has the highest Republican registration of any county in California, it unfailingly elects anti-tax Republicans...
- Absentee For the first time in my voting life, I will be voting absentee. I do have the option in California...
- Resurgent Draft: California Fiction This was a post that started in earnest in November 2005, just when I started to realize that California was...
- Share One more thought on Twitter before I am shown the exit… If it helps people communicate, god bless. And I...
- MacHeist I am battling temptation. I agree with the underlying context that the bundle is an overall rip-off for the individual...
June 17th, 2009 at 10:57 am
I really, really don’t like the idea of paying for state beaches – I love the fact that most of our beaches are free and accessible to all – and it should stay that way! Actually, I wish we had the luxury of more foresight and leadership, as our neighbors did with the Oregon Beach Bill in the 60s, which allows free beach access to everyone on every stretch of the Oregon Coast. I also don’t trust the idea of imposing a “temporary” fee – it would inevitably turn into a permanent solution. But raising those camping fees – yes! And why not impose a premium on that gorgeous site at Emerald Bay overlooking the lake – I am sure that it would still sell out in minutes!
July 3rd, 2009 at 10:56 pm
Milka and everyone: Here is the law; local governments cannot charge a use fee higher than what covers the governments actual cost to provide a recreational service or use of a property. I don’t know what it costs to maintain a campground, but I don’t think it costs much. Plus, when people come to the area of, say, a beach or campground, they are spending quite enough money to get there, and deserve a break, like free use of the properties that are already paid for (by the people). This stuff about raising use fees, just more excuses for government waste. In the city where I live the government is price gouging to make PROFITS from running its parks, and that’s against the law. I say no “premiums” or charges beyond what covers the governments actual cost to maintain park properties, and that is what the law says. Moreover, we have a lot bigger problems in this state than what raising use fees by a dollar will solve, like an ambitious libertarian for Governor that thinks there should not be any public property, and so we have toll roads, where the people of California subsidized those toll roads so private investors could price-gouge we who would use those roads, where the money to build those same roads was already available to build those highways. But what did we get instead? We got toll roads and we get priced-gouged to use them. And now only the rich can use the toll roads regularly. Public resources — highways, parks, you name it — should not be something that the wealthy with their money can monopolize for themselves. Start charging a profit-making price on parks and beaches and soon only the rich are using those facilities, and the poor folks are shut out.
July 4th, 2009 at 11:15 am
What is all this talk about “shutting down” parks! That is an idle threat, or if the Governator and the Calif. Legislature would really do that, this is just their way of manipulating us, and shame on them for that. How so? They simply need to keep the parks open and cut-back on maintenance, it is that simple! Then they saved all that money they wanted to take out of our pockets to use these public recreational facilities. And how much “maintenance” is involved anyway? A campground has toilet facilities, not a real big deal to keep that running. Water faucets? What else? Trash collection? I am sure the fees that are already being charged cover that stuff with change to spare.
August 30th, 2009 at 3:52 pm
How long did it take you to write this blog.