Comments on: California Parks, Use Fees, and Cost-Neutrality*

By: Elaine Kristof

Elaine Kristof — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 07:57:38 +0000

A Great post, I will save this post in my Clipmarks account. Have a awesome day.

By: Ramon I.

Ramon I. — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 22:52:24 +0000

How long did it take you to write this blog.

By: NoCorruption

NoCorruption — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 18:15:39 +0000

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.

By: Poorman

Poorman — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 05:56:30 +0000

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.

By: Milka

Milka — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:57:45 +0000

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!