Comments about ‘Utah Legislature: Lawmakers explore idea of privatizing state parks’

Return to article »

Published: Monday, Feb. 15 2010 1:17 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Anonymous

One answer... NO!!!! Privatizing these parks would only go to further destroy the land that we have worked so hard to protect.

Over spending

For what reason do the park service want to install home amenities in the parks? People go to the parks to get away from home and there everyday habits. The only thing the parks need is trash cans for those who litter and can't take there trash with them.

Privatizing these parks and fees to enter them is why I have stopped visiting them. The parks are getting too much development and commercialism in them, leave them alone and pristine. The park service is there to patrol the parks for eco-violations, law enforcement, and help those in them. They don't need souvenir shops or restaurants in them or camping facilities. Force the visitors to bring their needs and take their trash with them.

Leave the parks undeveloped and stop with this mentality to make them a home like environment and do not privatize the parks. It will double the cost to enter and keep more people away.

new perspective

The issue is not parks. The solution is to have public programs ( medicade, care for disabled, elderly, young children) put on the sholders that can carry it best. Namely the churches. Our state is an embarresment to its heritage!

rvalens2

The State should allow non-profits to run the parks via contract but retain ownership so they continue to oversee how they are being run.

I'm certain there are many people who through volunteerism and financial support would be willing to help keep the parks open. And do it at a cost much lower than what the State can do it for now.

Anonymous

At the same time, the department is embracing ways to be more innovative and businesslike ....

"We want to be independent," Styler said. "We want to look for revenue opportunities."

Its the Conservative Way......more $$$$$
Less service

SO...

...give us a list of the parks that are being considered.
Also, why would they consider cutting some parks and in the same breath talk about adding internet hookups in others.Let the paople that can't live without the internet stay home.

Norm

While I do not necessarily disagree with Ellis Ivory's assumption that shutting state parks leads to losses in tourism revenues, I would like some data to back it up. I know of some state parks that are visited by tourists from outside of the State and others that seem to be visited mainly by locals. Visits by locals, in many cases, brings in little by way of hotel, food establishment, and other revenues.

Bob R.

Opposed! Visit Utah parks in the Summer and Spring and see how heavily they are used. Utah is a big-family state and it is apparent in the park systems. Examine the limits of privatizing. Compare the offerings of public and private parks before taking that giant step. Privatizing, I think, will rob park visitors of a "nature" experience. Privatize buildings and services in towns and cities where it probably should be done but don't dole out nature to citizens by turning the remaining natural enclaves into profit generators.

Keep them primitive

I agree with overspending. Keep the parks primitive, free of stores, internet connections, and other such things. Have a few signs and/or displays in the parking area to give a brief overview of the historical or natural aspects of the park. Have public restrooms in the parking area but not elsewhere. Have ramps and paved paths in the vicinity of the parking area and dirt, unmaintained paths elsewhere. Charge reasonable fees to help offset the tax dollars needed to pay for the minimum maintenance of the parks. Use tax dollars to list the parks in registries, but don't spend tax dollars to entice people to come to the parks. Let people come to the parks who are willing to endure the primitive nature of the parks, and let people who what more conveniences stay away. The parks should be available to all, but the parks shouldn't try to satisfy the needs of all. Let locals who are interested in a particular park form non-profit volunteer groups to help staff and maintain particular parks.

an old, old man

This is what Bush & Cheney tried to do to our national parks. Privatization is one more way to deprive common Americans of one of the best parts of our American way of life and pour more dollars into the pockets of Republicans in big business. Can you imagine the Haliburton Nature Trail around Old Faithful or having Kodachrome Basin run by Chevron?

There is virtually no place left in Texas for Texans to go enjoy time with nature, because during the years Bush was governor down there, most of Texas was "privatized" and the new owners doubled or tripled fees for entrance and camping.

This is just one more Republican grab for total control.

Anonymous

We need to understand that state parks preserve our heritage, some wilderness, and our history. This is not something which should be privatized. I have no objection to a small fee, or for a tax which might go to support these parks.

uritaata

The ideology that pivate can do better than public has reached it's peak of stupidity. Making profits should never be the purpose of state park and privatization is not always the solution to all our financial problems. In today's economy many private companies are going bankrupt.
A company will always look at maximizing its's profit--not breaking even! If revenue is not in, park maintenance will most likely be cut, parts of the parks closed, safety trimmed ect...
Not going in the right direction...



LRR

State Parks are for all the people to enjoy. Keep them primitive and cut down on Rangers, trucks, and big buildings. We just want to enjoy the pristine areas.

hmmm

"This is just one more Republican grab for total control. "

Lets see...Taking the parks out of the hands of the state government is "Republicans grab for total control"

Wow...the leap of logic here is astounding...

Wonder what the commentor really thinks....

Bottom line...We have more services than we do revenue to support them. Out of one side of our mouths we cry "No more taxes" out of the other..."Don't take away my state provided benefits!"

Sounds like a "have my cake and eat it too" scenario.

Kudos to our lawmakers for seeing the hard choices and having the courage to move forward!

Jenny

One has to ask which representative is pushing this and how much does he stand to make selling a park to his relative or friend.

Anonymous

Big mistake.

Profits can't run everything in this state.

That is what the legislature is trying to do with education and we can see how well that is working out.

Legislature IQ

Our legislature needs a complete overhaul. We are seeing ridiculous ideas coming out of it such as dropping 12th grade from public schools, privatizing state parks...to name just two!

Stupid does as stupid says.

Liz

The 45 day legislative session can't end too soon. The fact that this idea and many of the other cuts being proposed (as well as the wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars on likely constitutional challenges to "message" bills) is considered less radical than increasing revenue is just plain nuts!

Anonymous

Cut the number of legislators and the number of days in the legislative session if you want to save some money. We need LESS GOVERNMENT!!! Then stop with the "message bills" and all the litigation that we'll spend in the courts. How about that?

Peaches

The parks were set aside for the people of a state or this nation to enjoy. Encouraging those who would "get gain" by limiting access to God's pure creation to only those who could pay would be a huge mistake. How much more of our souls are we willing to sell for money?

Let the parks remain (or revert to the) wild, if it comes to that. As many above have said, there would probably be enough volunteer work to handle the bare necessities.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments