Printable View
I was just curious on whether people would voluntarily give 10 dollars to the State on your car tabs for unlimited use in the state parks? I am, since I can get some serious use of it outstate.
I'd bet that if [[hypothetically) Belle Isle became a state park, that fee would exponentially increase in the COD. Come to think of it, doesn't this mean that the Tricentennial Park will require this tab designation as well?
Link to article below.
http://www.detnews.com/article/20091...ichigan-Senate
I think this is great, and I'd do it. I'd love the idea of Belle Isle being a State Park, I hope Bing with Council's help thinks/does something like that as the city can't afford it anymore.
As more evidence of politicians full of crap, check out this quote:
"Sen. Gerald VanWoerkom, R-Muskegon, said he doesn't support the parks finance plan because: "I don't believe this fee is an appropriate way of funding our parks. I believe the users should pay for that recreational opportunity.""
Well, it's OPT IN, idiot. That means if I don't want to pay for it, I don't have to. If I pay for it, I'm probably gonna be a user. I would totally do this. This is a smart compromise, better than Lt. Gov Cherry's idea to make it opt-out.
"Lt. Gov. John Cherry said today he preferred an earlier version of the legislation that would have assessed the $10 registration fee on all applicants unless they opted out.
"It's lost a lot of its value," Cherry said. "It can't raise the money other states [[with a similar fee) have raised.""
I agree with the Lt. Governor. The Senate is missing a rare opportunity to make a real difference.
As far as I'm concerned, the 10 will be a lot better than the 24 I was paying. I wonder though, when this all will start?
The primary use of the funding from liscence plates is a user fee to help defray the cost of buses and roads. With these in such terrible shape and the backbone of our economy I cannot support such a proposal. Any increase in cost of plates should be used to fund transportation.
Parks should have a separate user fee. A ten dollar addition to the plate fee would mean that the parks would get substainially more use, in turn meaning a lot more in the way in cleaning costs and rebuilding of infrastructure within the parks. Its short-sighted and will do damage to the parks system and make it harder for the user to judge how much funding they put into the transportation system.
If signed into law, this would begin on October 1st of 2010.
I'm a member of the Citizens Committee for Michigan State Parks and we've been working on this proposal for many years now. We certainly would have preferred the opt-out model that is used in Montana. Unfortunately we didn't have the votes in the Senate for that. This is the best we could get and it's far better than the state park fiscal meltdown we are heading towards now.
Tricentennial [[now Milliken) state park doesn't require a vehicle pass for the parking lot at Rivard Plaza. [[Yes, that free lot is leased to the DNR.) In speaking before a joint House-Senate hearing on this bill, I mentioned Tri-Centennial as a reason why we need to change the state parks funding model. We can't set up a toll booth on the RiverWalk. That's ridiculous.
It's sad that senators can say stuff like "users should pay" when they'd probably be the first one to stop the DNR from charging new user fees in their district. The legislation's unwillingness to raise park entry fees or send any taxpayer dollars to state parks is the real reason we're in this financial mess.
In a similar vein, some legislators have said we should sell off some state parks. I believe it was a member of the Natural Resource Committee that told me he'd bring a map showing the state parks in their district and ask that legislator which should be sold. They would balk because they want the DNR to sell off state parks in other people's districts.
We're just hoping a majority of legislators and vehicle owners will recognize the value of having a well-maintained, sustainable state park system whether they use it or not.
Or maybe you won't use the parks this year, but you eventually want to visit the Taquamenon Falls or the Porkies or Mackinaw Island. Or your kids will. Making that $10 contribution will help ensure that they'll be there.
State parks are not a commodity you can sell off and buy back later. They're preserving Michigan's most valuable natural resources for generations to come.
And our natural resources are something that set us apart from all the other states. It's a competitive advantage that we probably don't always recognize.
They're worth keeping around.
So you're opposed to the current vanity license plates that raise funds for universities and other Michigan causes?Quote:
Originally Posted by DetroitPlanner
ToddScott, I think this is a good idea. The opt-in portion allows people to decide for themselves whether they want to support the Park system or not. But I do have a couple of questions.
1, since Michigan is a camping destination for folks from Ohio, Illinois and Indiana how will they pay?
2, What does the $10 fee include? Will the $10 allow a camper access to all camp grounds? Or will there be an additional daily fee for campers? Currently there is a daily $24 fee for most campgrounds; that can get a little pricey if you're staying for a few days and is almost as expensive as Motel 6.
Todd, since you're in the know, I'd love to hear your thoughts.
I am opposed to a policy that continues to underfund two sectors important to the Michigan economy. By increasing the fee, even volantarily it will mean it will be harder for increases for what the original purpose of the user fee is, buses and roads. It will also undermine the funding to the parks by reducing the fees for those who use the parks the most, and also serve as a way to increase park use by suddenly creating a new demand by those electing to get a $10 annual pass.Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd_Scott
It is bad policy to have the parks supported by the drivers. We should be looking for ways to get people to use the parks in a way that will be less destructive to our environment than a car [[buses, bikes, walking) and have mechanisms for user fees based upon the people using the parks, not the cars using the parks.
This leads to the underfunding of both these assests which are poorly maintained as it is. It is foolish. You can't make both sectors strong by raiding each others piggy banks. Maybe we should start a user-fee for campers to help pay for roads? Its complex, leads to underfunding both, and creating more costs for the park system in terms of maintenance. The article aknowledges that they will still need people to man the parks to sell enteries, plus additional staff to check to see who is cheating. How about the litigation costs? Or turning the DNR officers into parking snitches instead of upholders of the parks?
Personally I think vanity plates are stupid too and anyone who spends extra is a sucker. If you want to support a school or charity, send em money.
You're right DPlanner, we should force a family of four to ride a bus to a campground, off-load their tents, kitchen flys, coolers, sleeping bags, campstoves, bikes, chairs and swim fins ... then have Mom and Dad march their brood two miles to their assigned spot of grass.
You know, it's important to think through your ideas before posting them.
Never said anything remotely like that. User fees need to be rationale in how they are collected. There are plenty of things you can do in a State Park other than camp. Maybe you need to get out and see how some other places like Yosemite or even Pointe Pelee and the Huron Clinton Parks are reducing the impact of vehicles on the park system in ways that improve the park and the environment?Quote:
Originally Posted by gnome
Well, it also depends on the overall function of the park anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by gnome
A park dedicated to camping and recreation isn't going to be as restrictive as a park that is a nature preserve. That's how it is in Ontario. It's not much different in the Michigan parks I've been to.
The same way I do, by purchasing a daily or yearly pass at the gate. Everything remains unchanged for non-residents.Quote:
Originally Posted by gnome
Out of state vehicles will continue to pay the entry fee. At parks that are popular with out of state visitors, a toll booth will likely remain at the entrance. At other parks, there's a discussion about selling the passes from a vending machine.Quote:
Originally Posted by gnome
The state park camping fees will remain, however you will not need to purchase a vehicle pass to drive in, so in effect the costs are less -- especially for those with RVs pulling a vehicle.Quote:
Originally Posted by gnome
The reason the camping fees are perhaps higher than some want is because our state parks are largely funded by them. Unlike the park entry fees, camping fees are set by the DNR/NRC so we've been able to raise them in order to keep the parks open. I do get a sense within our Citizen's Committee and the DNR that we cannot raise those fees anymore without serious push back.
DPlanner, you are talking about completely revamping the entire State park system. What we have in Michigan are several dozens of smallish places that folks drive to, set up their tents, pull up their campers and spend a few days. In the UP it is different with larger tracts that abut even larger National Forests, but the vast majority of folks take their kids to the smaller places so they see the stars at night.
They spend their days at nearby destinations then retreat to their tents for evenings of wiener roasting. If you'd like to draw up a position paper on how to change the mindset of all those car-campers, I'd love to hear it. Of course, you'd have to get the State House and Senate to agree with your central premise that cars are ruining the Park System.
I thought the reason the State Parks are underfunded was because fewer folks were going to them; hence, gate receipts were down. Do I understand that correctly?
Wow how folks jump to conclusions. Let me reiterate in a simple way.
User fees should not canibalize each other.
We should look for ways that provide an opportunity for people who use parks without needing a car to use them.
Those who use parks without using a car should contribute something to using those parks at a rate that is less than the cost of using a car, but covers the cost of things such as clean-up or rest areas.
I am pro user fee for parks and cars. However any combining of the two will make it more difficult to increase either fee in the future because people will see the cost of both registering their car and getting into the park increase and scream bloody murder at the politicos who will shoot the increase down and allow the system to further deteriorate.
How do you get people to parks without driving? I think I'm missing something in your line of thinking.Quote:
We should look for ways that provide an opportunity for people who use parks without needing a car to use them.
I think he wants a dense, walkable campground, with light [[t)rail and forest floor retail.
Now that's funny!Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornwrecker
Like zoos are becoming increasingly aware of the environment, so are parks. Transportation is seen as a big issue to parks. Not everyone has a car, and most parks are set-up around the car which can exclude those who are disabled or poor from using the parks.Quote:
Originally Posted by gnome
Many people visit State Parks by walking to them. Even though the DNR has decided to use the "First Urban State Park" for Tricentenial, State Parks have existied in smaller urban areas such as Traverse City, Harrison, Algonac, and Mackinaw that people do not drive to. In fact you cannot drive to Mackinaw, most are shuttled there by a ferry and do not pay a fee to get into the park, only into the historical attractions of the park. You could set-up a system for some parks such as Tawas that would force all day users to use a shuttle from downtown to the beaches, helping to mitigate the impact of the most fragile part of the park. Not only that, it would increase tourism dollars spent in downtown Tawas by reinforcing it to be a destination, not just a drive-thru to get to the park.
Most users of Tricentenial walk or bike to the park.
If places like the Grand Canyon can do this to reduce pollution in the parks as well as the footprint that vehicles have on the park, certainly there are lots of places in Michigan we can do this as well. The problem is that we are tied to thinking we always need the car.
The underfunding has been caused by the legislature reducing taxpayer support of our state parks through the years. In 2004 they removed all taxpayer support and told the DNR to redirect their infrastructure repair funding [[from a trust fund) into operations.Quote:
Originally Posted by gnome
Nationwide, parks are not sustainable based on user fees alone.
Most people drive to state parks period. When they walk in, chances are they drove close enough in order to do so.
This proposal is the equivalent of selling park stickers at the Secretary of State's office. It's not a big deal.
DPlanner, I surmise you've never tried camping with children. Not as a child, but as an adult. Anytime you go camping with children, it is an exercise in logistics. Food, potty breaks and supplies, chairs, coolers, blankets, toys, umbrellas, lotions of all sorts, juice boxes.
Not everyone is a 26 yr old who can pack a week of supplies into a backpack.
Your entire premise lacks credulity.
Indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by gnome
The "not use cars to get to state parks" idea is an answer to a problem that really doesn't exist. The cost in terms of convenience and flexibility is much larger than the benefit of some nano-scale improvement in air pollution. For me, at least, and probably for 98% of the rest, taking a motor vehicle is by far the best solution.
Absolutely, I agree. Camping, fishing, whatever, I have never witnessed anyone going into ANY state park by walking. Carrying that gear and a chair in? AND the tackle box? Dragging a boat in by hand? Camping supplies like Gnome said? Or even picnic supplies like charcoal and food? Please.Quote:
Originally Posted by gnome
Unless, of course, you are trying to beat the car fee for entrance. I wonder if they make walkers pay the fee?
DPlanner, I don't mean to be mean to your passion as it seems you have a vision for a better way of utilizing our camping resources. For me, one way for a campground to decrease auto traffic would be to rent bikes. Or at least provide for private companies to set up such a venture on State property.
Last year I went to my favorite campground, Wilderness Park, west of the Big Mac Bridge and north of Cross Village. You are correct, if I wanted to go up to the nearest store for some charcoal or cheetoes I had to get in the car to run up the mile or so. If the State ran a bike rental kiosk [[like the guys down on the Detroit Riverwalk) I would have taken a bike.
It is true that in places like Yosemette, Glacier and Yellowstone they have shuttle busses that folks can take on sightseeing tours. But those places have a problem that Michigan doesn't have: too many people. We need to increase the number of folks who venture outdoors and utilize our beauty. Such involvement is good for everyone. More people, more revenue. More people, more appreciation for nature. win, win.
The license fee opt-in is part of the attempt to increase revenue and thereby participation. The idea is that if you have already paid for park access you will be prone to use it.
LOL you folks are reading a whole lot into what I am saying that ain't there. Check out my links and ask yourself, for day trips whats the best experience? Surely lugging a bunch of crap over a huge parking lot sucks compared to having a bus drop you off feet from a beach. Even Disney knows this and people use public transit to get from their campgrounds to the parks in Florida and all parks are linked by one mode or another. My statements are to make the parks more accessible, and have more resources for funding. Combining user fees is a recipie for disaster for funding both the parks and the transportation systems. I would not however be opposed to the DNR being able to sell a vehicle pass at the SOS office for a discount providing they are kept separate. Heck you can even change the pass so they are tied to the dates that people renew their plates.
You really need to get out more. The fresh air will do you good. I can recommend the Rifle River Recreation Area. Its a beautiful place to walk.
"I would not however be opposed to the DNR being able to sell a vehicle pass at the SOS office for a discount providing they are kept separate."
How is that any different than what is being proposed? I think most people who opt-in will understand the purpose for the fee.
Give to Caeser what is Caeser's.... The SOS is not part of the Transportation Department. It should be there to serve all branches of government. These should be kept separate but coordinated by combining them it would make it tough to raise either one because it would be risen at the expense of the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Novine
The $10 state parks pass has been recommended by people who have studied parks finance in other states, and I suspect it is a good idea that will increase both parks usage and funding, although maybe only by a little. I know I'll buy one for one of my cars, the one we're most likely to take camping.
This scheme won't affect the likelihood of raising road and transit taxes. It is clearly an optional purchase on top of your license-plate tax, and indeed no other arrangement would be constitutional under Art. IX, Sec. 9 of the state constitution, which restricts vehicle taxes to road and transit use except for the cost of collection by the Secretary of State.
There are a lot of interesting details to this issue. The Secretary of State claims she needs 5 per cent of the parks fee to operate the system, but the bill only gives her half a per cent. Any additional money needed will come from the General Fund. The Department of State is presently siphoning over $90 million a year from transportation funds and the general fund to pay for the cost of license plates and all those branch offices. That would patch a lot of potholes or pay for some bus-miles. The case could be made for abolishing the Secretary of State altogether and selling license plates and the parks passes through retailers or other low-bid contractors. Finally, the parks passes will evidently [[from reading the bills as passed) consist of special-color plates or tabs, and a computerized record of plate numbers for which the fee has been paid each year. This means that a contractor may get paid to maintain the data base of paid fees, for checking by automated license-plate readers at park entrances. Contractors are hot to sell the state similar systems for enforcing auto registration and mandatory insurance, and I wonder if they aren't also behind the parks-pass bill to some extent.
Very good review, Sandhouse.
I'm told the plan is to obsolete vehicle registration tabs. In the near future, all vehicle registration checks can be done electronically. The DNR will have access to this same system and can check for park fees. It wouldn't be a separate database or system.
I haven't heard of any contractors lobbying of these bills, but it's certainly possible that they have.
LOL.... Gnome.... after reading your posts, it brought up the thought of hiring a safari team to schlepp the camping gear those 2 miles... I had visions of "Mr. Canoehead" from the "Kids in the Hall" comedy show... :D
And... contrary to any suggestions... I would avoid the Rifle River at all costs.... someone in a canoe will start cussin' and then you'll tell them to STFU... and then the State Police will get involved... it ain't pretty! :eek:
And if you go to Tri-Centennial Park... don't take charcoal lighter fluid onto the People Mover... Homeland Security will get involved for bringing on an incindiary propellant ... and then after a thorough cavity search... you'll end up incarcerated with a dance partner named Bruno... :[[
Stay in the car Gnome.... just stay in the car!! ;)
Our family would happily participate in the $10 state parks pass.
Every year we buy two Metroparks permits [[$25 x 2) and two State Parks permits [[$24 x 2) for our cars. We visit parks several times a week and feel we get much more than $98 worth of "benefit" every year.
Gnome, people can bring a bike into a state park. Hell, they're on vacation, supposedly enjoying being outdoors, they can even walk the entire mile and work off a little bit of those cheetos. What's next, moving sidewalks on the nature trails?
Gnome...Wilderness State Park and Cross Village are 2 of my favorite destinations as well.......nice day for a walk, wanna go with me?
http://freep.com/article/20091227/NE...to-be-approved
Bill to end park fees expected to be approved
ASSOCIATED PRESS
A Michigan lawmaker says legislation that would eliminate entrance fees for the state's parks appears poised for passage by the state Legislature.
Republican State Rep. Arlan Meekhof from West Olive tells The Muskegon Chronicle the bill has bipartisan support and should be passed in January by both legislative chambers.
The plan would eliminate entrance fees for state parks and give motorists the option of paying a $10 add-on vehicle registration fee. Supporters say that, among other things, the plan will pump millions of dollars into a fund for maintaining state park facilities.
The legislation is expected to be approved by the end of January. State officials say that if Gov. Jennifer Granholm signs it soon after, the new process would take effect by April 1.
Note that if reconciled legislation passes the House, Senate, and is signed into law, it will not take effect until October 2010 -- contrary to what the media has reported.
My post from 12/27 was not entirely correct. See post from today from the DNR wire:
Date: December 29, 2009
To: DNRWIRE@LISTSERV.MICHIGAN.GOV
Subject: Senate Bill 388 Signed by Governor Granholm
We had several media outlets erroneously report on Monday, Dec. 28, that
the Governor signed legislation to create the State Park Passport, the
$10 fee added to Michigan license plate renewals that would take the
place of the Michigan State Park Motor Vehicle Permit window sticker.
This is not true.
Senate Bill 388 originally was a bill to create the State Park
Passport; however, the Legislature substituted language in the bill to
simply extend the expiration date on the Motor Vehicle Permits to the
end of March 2010. This gives them more time to work on the agreement to
create the State Park Passport — which has NOT been approved by the
Legislature yet.
I would respectfully ask for a correction from any media outlets that
reported this, as many DNR offices are getting calls from angry state
park users who already purchased a 2010 Motor Vehicle Permit and want a
refund. The State Park Passport [[$10 license plate fee) has not been
approved yet. And if it is approved, it would not take effect until Oct.
1, 2010. In order to enjoy a state park or state recreation area in
2010, people will need to purchase a 2010 Motor Vehicle Permit window
sticker, as they have in the past. They are available at any state park,
or online at www.michigan.gov/dnr.
Mary Dettloff
Public Information Officer
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
dettloffm1@michigan.gov
The Recreation Passport program begins October 1. FAQ here:
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7...4654--,00.html
I love the idea and fully support it. I get my 41 tear old ass backpacking at least 5-10 times in this state and hike both solo and with groups -- sometimes numbering 12-15. I also take my family out car camping about 1-3 times a year depending on schedules. I've talked to a few rangers about this and every one of them are happy it's going to happen. It will reduce layoffs to an already stressed DNR; stabilize and improve our park system.
If I remember right, Johnny the A-hole took most of the DNR funding out of the general fund a while ago as a means to become self sufficient. When the DNR became self sufficient, and wildly successful at it, their fund was commonly plundered to help plug holes in the general fund deficits.
I definitely like the idea of paying $10 instead of $24, but how does it make up for the budget shortfall by lowering the price? Do they expect 3 or 4 times as many residents to participate? That would increase wear and tear on the parks and require more maintenance. Regardless, $10 is better than $24 for my wallet.
I see, they must be banking on A LOT of people paying the fee even if they don't use the parks.
" In addition, the passport gives residents the chance to protect the park and forest system's legacy for future visitors, even if they choose not to visit a park themselves."
If BI becomes a state park I'd happily opt in. As it is I will opt out and keep giving money to FoBI.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stosh
Just out of curiosity I checked to see where some State parks are located. I figured there would be more in the middle of the state than the metro area. It looks like Oakland County is one of the largest recipients of 'State Parks' and likely state park money.
http://www.michigandnr.com/parksandt.../waynearea.htm
Damn OC and their welfare mentality [[yes, it was said in jest)
Jt1, I guess Matilda Dodge Wilson is responsible for giving so much of that Oakland County land to the state for use as parks. Just how many Dodge Parks are there anyway?? #4 was my favorite...
"I definitely like the idea of paying $10 instead of $24, but how does it make up for the budget shortfall by lowering the price?"
Point of sale. Instead of selling to a pool of mostly on site folks, the DMV offers a much wide pool of potential sales.
If they factored in an option for the Metro Parks--which I use much more than the state parks I would do it.
There are countless state park campgrounds all across the state though, click on any county up north, all the green that pops up will mess with your retina for days.Quote:
Originally Posted by jt1
My comment about OC was slightly tongue in cheek. Your statement backs my reasons for not opting in and sending my money to FoBI instead. If Lansing sends a dollar to Detroit people bitch that it is welfare. I fLansing sends money to OC and rural counties to support parks it is seen as being responsible and in the best interests of the state. I just don't see how they are different based upon recipients.Quote:
Originally Posted by johnsmith
Currently my taxes support Detroit Parks and Rec, HMCA so I don't feel the need to pay into a thrid entity.
Yeah, that's what I figured. They're banking on people who don't use the parks that might still be willing to give the $10. Plus, people who use one sticker for multiple cars will have to pay for each car now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baselinepunk
to bring revenue to take care of belle isle, there could be auctions for corporations to name sections of the park..
johnsmith -- as it was explained to me, if something like 20-30 percent of the folks opt in, it would increase the budget by almost 75%. I don't know how formal those numbers are, so file under FWIW.
Gotcha.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baselinepunk
http://hippiekiller.files.wordpress....uper_wink1.jpg