Somebody Needs to Teach Our Legislators the Meaning of the Term "Public Good"


"Stoopid politicians"?

Stupid us, Goldy. Stupid us.

Best, Tim Eyman
death before a modest state income tax and a reduction in property & sales taxes!
Well, most privatization schemes tend to be lose-lose for taxpayers since, in the end, they wind up paying more for privatized services than they do when they're under public control. But, you know CAPITALISM, FUCK YEAH!
It's not long after enactment before a modest state income tax becomes less than modest and initial reductions in sales and property taxes disappear.
Running 'parks as businesses' is the most idiotic idea I've read all day. And I been on Facebook and Twitter all morning.
@4 Dude, help me pick some lotto numbers too while you're predicting the future, eh?
I have not seen a complete breakdown of the Parks Dept. revenues, but from the article less than 15% of their funding comes from the State General Fund. That seems like a pretty good model to expand upon rather than jeopardize.

@4: prove it. make your case without a slippery slope fallacy argument.
I too am completely baffled as to how we have let our State parks only be accessible to those who can afford it. This was not the idea when they were established.

I can afford it, but
Frankly, I'd be in favor of closing them down, over having a system of supposedly public parks that are closed off from the poor.
The phrase "the public good" is right at the top of Ayn Rand's list of unacceptable terminology. She wasn't too crazy about unspoiled nature either.
You answered you own question.

These guys are drooling at the thought of waterfront condos in Discovery Park.
Two words: income tax
it's horribly horribly regressive to charge for state parks. many people can't afford the $10 fee which btw is rather outrageous. I can afford a $30 pass for the state and another $30 pass for tthe feds, what about unemployed people?

that said, I think it's an overreaction to protest any move towards efficiency. There some things the parks could do better. would it be outrageous to charge 30% for the oceanfront tent sites compared to those at the back of the campground when this means it's still affordable? that's probably okay. I'd like to see costs cut with more emphasis on you bring it in, you take it out, there's no need to have all these trash receptacles for picnickers who carry crap in then overfill the receptacles as if they can't carry it out. iow there's some room for rationalization without ahem, selling off beachfront discovery parkland for condos. Or maybe it would be okay to charge $4 for parking at discovery park or state parks, I'd rather see that than an entry fee of $10. many people walk or bike or bus to state parks. or have a $30 parking pass good for two years. AS to privatization some of it would b okay I wouldn't mind renting a C -Lark sailboat at greenlake or cranberry lake instead of the clunky boats they rent, so ugly most of them, and a cafe with tables at Greenlake where they have the big parking lot near the library would be an amenity. also a cash cow. in bellingham they have a coffee store right on their waterfront walking trail, people love it it's right inside that park, and no it doesn't mean it's a slippery slope to condos in the park. you get a latter right there on the water, sweet, with a very civilized thing called a table and chair. there's no reason we wouldn't want to have that in some waterfront parks like say, golden gardens, why is the hot dog restaurant pushed back from the water, it could be right on the water. oh wait, waterfront is reserved for port offices and their sailing club buddies that cost $300 a month, while a hot dog or a coca cola selling type store is for the plebes, they don't get waterfront.
Bush & Cheney ran the government like business. They ran it like Enron, but still...

Like Oregon which has no sales tax?
If Parks were run as a business, rich jerks would pay $10,000 a year for their passes.

And get a little gold star allowing them to jump the queue for the bathroom, like the jerks they are.
@12 for the Insightful Win.
Absolutely not.

State parks are publicly owned land. We own it. We the taxpayers and citizens. They should be open and available to all citizens, regardless of income. If you want a park run like a business, go to Disneyland.

Based on my own history living in CA, I could see where @4's coming from. There are states with what I'd term "reasonable" income taxes, but the voting base of WA makes me fear we'd be more likely to follow the CA route than those states.
Texas has a good idea. Well, Texas has an idea:…
Time to get on the horn to Olympia and start yellin' at some legislators, I guess.
@19: would that be the voting base that approves everything eyman wipes his ass on?
Here's one fiscal conservative who agrees entirely. Public goods like parks, streets, education, and courts are open and useful to all. The state needs to prioritize them over health care and other services for poor people, which have been swallowing an ever larger part of the state budget.
@23, wow. Somehow you managed to take support for an unequivocal public good, and make it a total dick move. Good job, I guess.
Please look at what we do in Oregon...we voted to take lottery money to help support our parks.