|
Pasted below is one of the finest user-fees-related Editorials I have read. It comes from New Hampshire and I encourage you to share it widely. These views need to be heard. You might even send this newspaper a thank you note in the form of a Letter to the Editor. They deserve it.
As excellent as this Editorial is, it is a shame they limited their comments to New Hampshire's State Park. It would have been nice had they extended these same thoughts to cover our federally managed public lands and parks. As America transitions into a Pay-to-Play nation where the measure of a person becomes the thickness of his or her billfold, it is vital that arguments such as these are heard above the din of today's "ownership-society" rhetoric.
New Hampshire, for those who may not know this, was the first of four States to pass an anti-Fee-Demo resolution. I am, in fact, privileged to have held a press conference on this topic inside New Hampshire's State Capitol building. A large and entirely bipartisan delegation of State Representatives stood with me in resolute opposition to the Recreation Fee Demonstration Program --- now known as the "Recreation Access Tax."
These folks not only take their State motto quite seriously, it appears they understand the value of "public" facilities far better than do our federal public-lands managers and the folks running our country from Washington DC.
Let's spread the word. Let's remind America what the word "public" means. Should we fail to do so we and future generations, will pay a terrible price.
Scott
--- begin quoted ---
January 31, 2005
Free or fee?
Since state parks benefit everyone, everyone should pay.
Until this month, there was no charge for children under 12 who wanted
to use a New Hampshire state park. Now, kids will have to pay $1. A
family of four must pay $8 or more to use a publicly-owned park and a
couple $14 to visit a historic site like the Daniel Webster Birthplace.
Despite talk of how some states charge more, or the argument that state
parks are a bargain compared to prices in the private sector, the fee
increases are not a sign of progress. So we strongly back Sen. Bob
Odell's act calling for a committee to study not just the economic
health of the park system but the philosophy that underlies the
decisions made about state lands.
For more than a decade, those decisions have been driven primarily by
one thing: money. Some proposals call for asking corporations to
sponsor state parks - for appropriate recognition, of course - or to
add high-revenue uses like golf courses and restaurants to public lands.
The summer that almost wasn't in 2004 left the state park system
desperately short of money. So, many fees were increased. Children 5
and under are still free for now, but youth group reservation fees were
raised from $13 to $25 and it will cost more to camp. General
reservation fees went from $3 to $5, the historic site fee from $3 to
$7. School groups will be charged for visiting parks, and the price to
park or launch a boat on the seacoast was increased.
What this means, of course, is that New Hampshire's public parks are a bit less public.
State parks often provide the only access to publicly-owned lakes and
ponds. That means those who don't own lakefront property or have access
to a residents-only town beach must now pay to use another resource
they already own.
Almost all states charge some fee to use parks. To a degree, that is
appropriate, if only to encourage good stewardship. But during the
recession of 1991, New Hampshire became the first state to require that
its park system be self-supporting. Vermont followed suit two years
later.
While general fund revenue makes up from 33 to 40 percent of the
average state park system's revenue stream, New Hampshire's parks get
nothing from the Legislature but good wishes. That decision was driven
by expediency, not fairness. It's time it was revisited.
Gov. John Lynch has the opportunity to appoint a new director of the
state's parks. The person he picks should not be a proponent of user
fees and self-supporting parks but someone with a broader vision and a
willingness to argue that all citizens benefit from the park system.
Those benefits come in many ways, but they include a more beautiful
landscape, additional tax revenue from tourism and less pressure on
private lands.
Defenders of the user-fee system love to point out how cheap a campsite
or a day at a state park is compared to its counterpart in the private
sector. The difference, of course, is that the public owns and in many
cases paid for the parks. Fee systems treat them as customers, not as
citizen-owners. High fees discriminate against the poor and make it too
costly for many people to use a park not for a whole day but just to
watch a sunset or fish for an hour or two after work.
If it is wrong to charge a fee - let alone a high fee - to use a city
park, why is it right to charge to use a state park? That question
hasn't really been asked. Nor has the state ever decided when or
whether it is appropriate to allow public property to be used for
private profit. Odell's effort to have these basic questions answered
deserves everyone's support.
|
- Privatization 
