Welcome to the AppalachianTrailCafe.net!
Take a moment and register and then join the conversation

TN Governor Wants to Privatize State Parks

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • g00gle: You're going to find that a lot of the people around here think privatization of the parks is a terrific idea. The tenet of faith is that anything government does can be done better by private parties. I sometimes suspect that the belief extends to law enforcement, the judiciary, and diplomacy.
      I'm not lost. I know where I am. I'm right here.

    • AnotherKevin wrote:

      g00gle: You're going to find that a lot of the people around here think privatization of the parks is a terrific idea. The tenet of faith is that anything government does can be done better by private parties. I sometimes suspect that the belief extends to law enforcement, the judiciary, and diplomacy.
      I wouldn't hazard an argument against the idea of privatizing in general, probably some serious potential for efficiency when people (or corporate entities) are motivated to action by a profit potential. Heck, that profit potential (see free market) is IMHO what made this country a super-power back during the 20th century (why does that sound like it was so long ago?) It is why we surpassed almost every nation on the planet (in everything) for a short time.

      But, honestly, I shudder when I think of public lands, parks, etc., going in to private hands. BSP is a great example of what's possible (granted it's not exactly corporate) in private hands. However, well, I haven't really mulled it over enough to offer any real cogent argument. But the thought of national parks, trails, and refuges going in to private hands just gives me the willies.
      *

      For once I'd just like to hear myself say, "Great job, self! Why don't you just take the day off."

    • TrafficJam wrote:

      Serious - I explored this in huge detail with Maryland. State Parks is the only positive cash flow that brings in positive dollars to defray other departments of govt. The state govt has little understanding of what works or what doesn't. State's make mistakes. Privatizing avoids Unions and currently (unfunded) Pensions. Other departments general run in the negative and cannot produce a profit. Hense they suck your tax dollars, with no avail... that is all.

      I have no skin in this post. Just feathers!
      Be wise enough to walk away from the nonsense around you! :thumbup:

    • g00gle wrote:

      AnotherKevin wrote:

      g00gle: You're going to find that a lot of the people around here think privatization of the parks is a terrific idea. The tenet of faith is that anything government does can be done better by private parties. I sometimes suspect that the belief extends to law enforcement, the judiciary, and diplomacy.
      I wouldn't hazard an argument against the idea of privatizing in general, probably some serious potential for efficiency when people (or corporate entities) are motivated to action by a profit potential. Heck, that profit potential (see free market) is IMHO what made this country a super-power back during the 20th century (why does that sound like it was so long ago?) It is why we surpassed almost every nation on the planet (in everything) for a short time.
      But, honestly, I shudder when I think of public lands, parks, etc., going in to private hands. BSP is a great example of what's possible (granted it's not exactly corporate) in private hands. However, well, I haven't really mulled it over enough to offer any real cogent argument. But the thought of national parks, trails, and refuges going in to private hands just gives me the willies.
      bsp is a special case in that governor baxter mandated the park be kept forever wild. different when management is handed over to the private sector, whose main goal is to turn a profit, not preserve a natural resource.
      its all good

    • hikerboy wrote:

      bsp is a special case in that governor baxter mandated the park be kept forever wild. different when management is handed over to the private sector, whose main goal is to turn a profit, not preserve a natural resource.
      Totally agree! And I'm a fan of the iron-clad rules that he managed to get in to place. Just used BSP as (sort of) an example. But that goal of turning a profit is what worries me when it comes to nature, wildlife, etc. As for other public areas... Well, even an opinion is well above my pay grade. Just want somewhere for my the grandkids of my grandkids to experience that feeling one can only feel miles away from the nearest neon sign. (I don't have any grandkids yet, but you know what I mean.) Hate to have to fund a trip to Canada or somewhere else because that was the only true wilderness left.

      Wait! Nevermind. If it's the grandkids of my grandkids, then I won't be funding a damn thing but the local worm population. Maybe I should change my position on this... :D
      *

      For once I'd just like to hear myself say, "Great job, self! Why don't you just take the day off."

    • Dmax wrote:

      Attention: New high dollar huts for rent in state parks. We will soon have helicopters to bring you in and out so you won't have to hike in. .. Bring your wallets and enjoy!
      One of my relatives suggested that the profit motive might man renting of camp sites, and grills next to the camp site, or a using a camp stove, would be separate fees.
      --
      "What do you mean its sunrise already ?!", me.

    • hikerboy wrote:

      bsp is a special case in that governor baxter mandated the park be kept forever wild. different when management is handed over to the private sector, whose main goal is to turn a profit, not preserve a natural resource.

      This is one case where I'm proud of what the people of New York did over a century ago.

      The New York State Constitution article 14 wrote:

      The lands of the state, now owned or hereafter acquired, constituting the forest preserve as now fixed by law, shall be forever kept as wild forest lands. They shall not be leased, sold or exchanged, or be taken by any corporation, public or private, nor shall the timber thereon be sold, removed or destroyed. (italics mine)

      It's been amended many times, most prominently to allow the Winter Olympics at Lake Placid and to allow the construction of Interstate 87. (Every cession of land has always been balanced with an acquisition of land of greater value.) But it still stands. It's hard enough to amend the state constitution (it takes two votes of both houses of the legislature, with an election intervening, to put the required popular referendum on the ballot) that it doesn't get monkeyed with frivolously. And it survived an attempt in 1968 to turn the Adirondacks into a National Park.
      I'm not lost. I know where I am. I'm right here.