Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What, not enough people are lining up to pay to mine in the parts of the Utah National Parks (and there were others if I remember) that were downsized?
saying they need to charge more because too many people get in for free, including veterans and the disabled.
"When you give discounted or free passes to elderly, fourth graders, veterans, disabled, and you do it by the carload, there's not a whole lot of people who actually pay at our front door," Zinke said. "So, we're looking at ways to make sure we have more revenue in the front door of our parks themselves." Active military members and disabled veterans can receive a free annual pass but Zinke assured the Senate committee that he would not impose new fees on them.
Simply raising the park fees will not address the $11.7 billion National Parks maintenance backlog, Zinke said. The infrastructures inside the park need renovation and restoration.
they need money to maintain and improve the infrastructure..... makes sense to raise the rates a little
If it were ONLY veterans, the disabled and schoolchildren getting in free, I don't think that would be much of a problem. However, if fees need to be increased to pay for their maintenance, imo, that would be fine with me, but $70 or more per carload would put it out of the reach of most people, I think, and that would be a shame.
IMO, there is not much that our taxes pay for that many people actually get enjoyment from, and I think that the National Parks should be accessible to everyone for a reasonable fee. I would say that they should be absolutely free, except that many of the national parks are overcrowded even now in peak season.
saying they need to charge more because too many people get in for free, including veterans and the disabled.
Yes, typical headline fraud from a lib.
The whole rationale for public parks was that they are what economists call a 'public good.' This is a product/service where transaction costs are so high that it cannot be offered by private industry. The classic example is the lighthouse. Lighthouses are needed, but there's no way to charge users for them. So they are a public good.
If it is possible to charge the users, which is often the case re national parks, it is better to have users pay instead of taxpayers. Why should some single mom in the inner city be taxed to pay for a national park in Utah that she'll never visit? Why not let her keep her money for her own needs?
This appears to me to be yet another in a series of good initiatives from the Trump Administration.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
