Drudge: Schwarzenegger to raise park fees to highest level ever

[kskiska]

FLASH: Schwarzenegger, whose promise to not raise taxes was a cornerstone of his winning election campaign, will raise California state park fees to their highest levels ever... Developing...

Link to an article:
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/7601653.htm

SACRAMENTO - User fees will be raised at state campgrounds, boat launching sites and museums beginning July 1 to offset a $15 million cut in the California State Parks budget, the agency announced Tuesday.

Under the revised fee schedule, the cost of an annual boat pass will increase from $45 to $75, day use permits that now cost $3-$5 will grow to $4-$14, and admission to Hearst Castle, currently $7-$12, will be raised to $8-$25 and $30 for an evening tour.

The parks department projects the new fees will raise $18 million, leaving an extra $2 million for backlogged park maintenance and $1 million for hiring more employees to collect the higher fees.

[Dagaz]

1. Good, raise usage fees

The Parks are packed anyway so let those who use the services pay for them. The Park rangers perform a GREAT GREAT service and I wouldn't want to see them cut.

[mitchtv]

2. I agree, Frisco

time for the spotted owls to come home to roost.You play, you pay.

[w4rma]

5. I disagree. Fees are one of the worst things to increase.

They hit the lowest income folks the hardest, always.

[Scaramouche]

6. Second that...

Everyone is taxed to support the parks. So high entry fees are in effect a barrier of entry for the poorer folk.

The Parks are for all and they should be there for families who can't go there with the RV's and ATV's. Thhis is our heritage and should not be treated like a zoo or a circus for the shills willing to pay the high cost of admission...

[Malva Zebrina]

20. this is indeed true

at least in all of the state parks that I have visited in many many states east of the Mississippi. Those who have the money and the huge RV's stay at private campgrounds and pay forty dollars a night for the priveledge of flush toilets, hot water showers and usually a rec center and a store of some sort. Those who are camping in the state campgrounds,and the national campgrounds and forests, are , in many cases, tent campers-and of the younger generation-and, from what I see, on the lower economic scale. The locations are often very beautiful for these state parks. I have not, to be fair, visited any in California--yet. And I probably will avoid them now.


Canada, though, is quite different . The Provincial parks are wonderful as are the people who use them and care for them. I cannot say enough good things about these parks.

[alarimer]

25. true

And you can only raise them so much before attendance will fall. Ultimately parks benefit everyone, even those who don't use them. I think that states, not just California, have to make a committment to public spaces for everyone, not just those who use them.

[AP]

9. Hello? They're effectively closing access to poor people. Furthermore,

it's just a way to force the working and middle class to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the super wealthy.

Pay the park rangers out of progressive taxation.

Are we Democrats here or what?

[theHandpuppet]

13. Excellent point!

... it's just a way to force the working and middle class to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the super wealthy.

Exactly. It's simply a way to hide an additional burden on the working poor. Meanwhile, those whose tax breaks helped pay for their Hummers, SUVs and ATVs will still be tearing up the parks.

[twilight]

17. sucks

Going to the State parks was the only vacation I could afford while working full-time. I went camping for 5 years in a row for 2 weeks. The cost was less than $200.00.

Now it is unaffordable for low income workers looking for their only possibly vacation destination and that is without a SUV or an RV, etc. I'm talk a tent and sleeping bags.

Now only the richer class will be able to hang-out and see the sites.

As for the poor that live a the State parks, they can go live under a bridge somewhere or look for a Hooverville!

This is SICK!!!



:dem: :kick:

[Malva Zebrina]

21. well, park rangers are becoming rare for that matter at least in the

National Forests and campgrounds here.

I camped in the White Mountain National Forest this fall in October, and it and all of it's support functions, such as the collection of fees, was run by a privatized corporation. It has been that way for three years now=-and it is becoming rather glitzy with the kiosks that are normally rather laid back and that sort of blend into the landscape being replaced by garish red, white and blue, glitzy signs.

[pscot]

19. Great move. Keeps the rabble out.

Next impose highway tolls so the rich can have the roads to themselves. Is this a great country or what?

[clarknyc]

3. What happens if...

What happens if the fee increase results in fewer park visits and does not offset the cuts in funding? What then? Will the state pony up the funds at that point? Or will the nasty head of privatization arise to plunder yet more resources that belong to the people? Pay to play? Please! These natural wonders are a part of our heritage -- all of our heritage -- not just the heritage of those that can afford to pay a bit more.

[salin]

15. No, they will use the lower attendance rates to justify selling off the

lands to big corporate donor cronies for development, or drilling, or what ever most profitable use can be used - and screw those folks who for years through tax dollars have invested in the purchase and upkeep of the lands.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

4. An extra $2 million for backlogged projects???

What a load of CRAP. Too many of our parks have been suffering from delayed maintenance for too long, and $2 million ain't gonna cut it, Arnie.

I could live with the increase in park fees if ALL that money were going to the parks, but f**k Arnie if it is to pay for his damn budget cuts.

Asshole.

[SharonAnn]

24. He's talking about STATE parks. Maybe they're not in as bad a

shape as our NATIONAL parks.

[hellhathnofury]

7. "$1 million for hiring more employees to collect the higher fees."

Just what we need, more tax collectors. I thought Republicans were against increased taxs, we'll maybe just on the rich. Hypocrites. Jobs though, YAAAY.

I want Davis back.

[Scaramouche]

10. Republicans...

are the Publicans... in the new testiment times... filthy tax collectors...

God forgive them...

[hadrons]

12. but cynicalSOB1, Ah-nold's not raising taxes, he's raising FEES ....

see the difference :D

[AP]

8. Psst. What about the totally regressive property tax structure?

Why are huge corporations paying 1980s valuations for property, which is often much less than first time home buyer's property taxes?

[hellhathnofury]

11. We passed Proposition 13 which severly limited the growth of

property taxes to 2%(not sure) of its current value. The property is only reappraised at market value when ownership changes. Tired. I think that's how it works. It's all been downhill since 1978.

[mitchtv]

14. all they have to do is remove commercial

real estate from prop 13 rules, and leave the residential alone.

[pinto]

16. loophole for corporate property: doesn't "technically" change hands...

just gets leased and released and released at ever higher prices with no re-evaluation under Prop 13. Unfortunately this is still untouchable here....it was a disaster waiting in the wings for falling income taxes, natural emergency costs and the energy gouge.

[underpants]

18. Notice he never mentioned "fees" just taxes

Just like W claimed he would lower people's taxes...all taxes George or just the one's you have control over and what becomes of the others then?

[trapper914]

22. What?

It takes more than action movie references to govern? Who woulda thunk?

[Cannikin]

23. Isnt that a standard repub campaign promise?

I read his lips and I still didnt understand him! hehe