..... Privatization of some State Parks ... (Cumberland Gap: insuring, purchase, campsites)

[TN Tin Man]

State Looking Into Limited Privatization Of Some State Parks | WUOT

[jchometeam]

Exactly why we need to be careful about the expansion of government. When government jobs are created, it is very difficult to cut them back and run more efficiently.

[TN Tin Man]

Originally Posted by jchometeam

Exactly why we need to be careful about the expansion of government. When government jobs are created, it is very difficult to cut them back and run more efficiently.

My fear is some were in time the parks might start charging a entrance fee..

[septimus]

Originally Posted by TN Tin Man

My fear is some were in time the parks might start charging a entrance fee..

TN has wonderful state parks, but they are in desperate need of maintenance and repair. I've pay for campsites at state parks and honestly I'd pay for daily admission to the parks. I've been to many different state parks in other states and it seems like most all charge a fee. I think we paid $20/car this summer to go to beautiful state park in Maine, if we had been in state residents it would have been $10 or something like that.

I don't think privatizing the parks is the answer, but I do think collecting fees for use would go a long way in insuring the parks are properly maintained.

[JMT]

Originally Posted by septimus

TN has wonderful state parks, but they are in desperate need of maintenance and repair. I've pay for campsites at state parks and honestly I'd pay for daily admission to the parks. I've been to many different state parks in other states and it seems like most all charge a fee. I think we paid $20/car this summer to go to beautiful state park in Maine, if we had been in state residents it would have been $10 or something like that.

I don't think privatizing the parks is the answer, but I do think collecting fees for use would go a long way in insuring the parks are properly maintained.

Tennessee did charge admission fees to state parks for a while under the Sundquist administration, and it went over like a lead balloon. Protests and picketing galore. Just as Tennessee requires that national parks located in the state have to be free (Great Smoky Mountains, Natchez Trace, Cumberland Gap, and Big South Fork), I suspect state parks will remain free, too.

I wish more Tennesseans would purchase those state parks license plates, as a portion of that money goes to support the parks, just as a portion of the Friends of the Smoky Mountains license plate goes towards the GSMNP. I know the Radnor Lake license plate is wildly popular in Nashville.

[septimus]

Originally Posted by JMT

Tennessee did charge admission fees to state parks for a while under the Sundquist administration, and it went over like a lead balloon. Protests and picketing galore. Just as Tennessee requires that national parks located in the state have to be free (Great Smoky Mountains, Natchez Trace, Cumberland Gap, and Big South Fork), I suspect state parks will remain free, too.

I wish more Tennesseans would purchase those state parks license plates, as a portion of that money goes to support the parks, just as a portion of the Friends of the Smoky Mountains license plate goes towards the GSMNP. I know the Radnor Lake license plate is wildly popular in Nashville.

From what I understand Sundquist tried to do a lot to raise revenue for better or worse.

However, the current administration could take a play out of Mitt Romney's book who didn't raise "taxes" in Mass as governor but did raise "Fees for use/services".

[hiknapster]

Originally Posted by septimus

From what I understand Sundquist tried to do a lot to raise revenue for better or worse.

However, the current administration could take a play out of Mitt Romney's book who didn't raise "taxes" in Mass as governor but did raise "Fees for use/services".

As if they don't have enough as it is. Born and raised in Mass., lived there for 33 years. Not only are the taxes high but they'll fee you to death. In 2011, Mass. was 11th in the land for tax burden of its citizens while Tennessee was 45th, according to the Tax Foundation.

Also, I call BS on the need for cost-saving measures. How many parks have seen major renovations such as Fall Creek Falls? And the place has a golf course, restaurant, conference center. I've been to state parks that have fees and were a mess and offered nothing, really. The article states that the state is looking into possibly turning over some functions to private corporations. The last two words are key. Private corporations hoping to get a piece of the pie is what this is really about, in my opinion. Newsflash, Tennessee parks are operating in the black.

State Takes First Steps Towards Privatizing Parks - NewsChannel5.com | Nashville News, Weather & Sports

[nashvols]

Originally Posted by septimus

From what I understand Sundquist tried to do a lot to raise revenue for better or worse.

However, the current administration could take a play out of Mitt Romney's book who didn't raise "taxes" in Mass as governor but did raise "Fees for use/services".

Sundquist did it because he was taking a stance on the overall budget situation. He wanted a state income tax. The vast majority of the residents did not. His "cost cutting" measures were more designed to scare people into supporting the income tax.

Mind you, he wasn't just charging a fee - -he closed 14 parks, which amounted to a paltry budget savings of $1.4 million.

State parks are a tool that politicians use -- they dangle them in front of us as a way of saying "hey, if you don't do this, we'll have to close our fabulous park system". It's stupid. In the scheme of things, the parks are more than worth the money the state is spending on them, and a valuable amenity for Tennesseans. They shouldn't be used as political fodder.


That said, I would not oppose finding creative ways to improve and maintain the parks, including entrance fees (but only at some of them). In the end, the goal should be to provide as much access as possible for all Tennessee residents. A modest entrance fee at the most popular/most crowded parks might actually help control traffic a bit and make the experience a little better for all.

Of course, there are other things that could be done, such as modest advertising/business sponsorship in parks (NOT changing the parks names by any means, but say, allow a business or private entity to sponsor a trail or a building). I don't want to see state parks become some sort of tacky advertisement, but if done in a modest way, it could provide helpful revenue without too much intrusion.

[septimus]

We stayed at this park a few years back Chickasaw State Park — Tennessee State Parks. It had so much potential, yet there was so much obvious deferred maintenance that needed to be addressed.

Nashvols is right. Not every park needs to charge a fee, but some of the more popular parks should and then let all the parks reap the benefits.

[hiknapster]

Originally Posted by septimus

We stayed at this park a few years back Chickasaw State Park — Tennessee State Parks. It had so much potential, yet there was so much obvious deferred maintenance that needed to be addressed.

Nashvols is right. Not every park needs to charge a fee, but some of the more popular parks should and then let all the parks reap the benefits.

Maybe that's the only park you've visited in Tennessee? There are some incredible parks here, far nicer than Mass. Frankly, you can keep your northeastern taxes and fees up there. I'm constantly amazed by some of my friends from there that think throwing money at things will solve everything. As I said, the Tennessee park system is operating in the black. I wonder if they don't spend much on Chickasaw because it isn't well attended.