Higher vehicle taxes to pay for state parks?

[William Wallace]

Prop 21 here in California, if passed, will impose a new $18 tax on all drivers when they renew their vehicle registration every year. The money is earmarked for our state parks, which are horribly mismanaged and underfunded due to nobody giving a fuck about them - including the state legislature. So a handful of environmental groups are taking the issue directly to voters this year.

https://reason.com/blog/2010/10/26/reasontv-prop-21

Your thoughts?

[Vivace]

If California wants parks then Californians should "pay" for parks. If they don't want them, then let them fall into ruin.

[El Barto]

Hell, I live in Texas and I've already paid $18 to California State parks this year.  (Well worth it, BTW--some nice parks out there)

I'm with you that the vehicle tax is bullshit.  I'm against you with regard to how you'd probably like to see them paid for.  Just a hunch.

[lordxizor]

I don't like raising taxes on something to fund something completely unrelated to the tax. If you're taxing a vehicle, the money should be going to pay for roads. I'm all for public parks, but find something at least somewhat related to tax in order to pay for them.

[William Wallace]

Hell, I live in Texas and I've already paid $18 to California State parks this year.  (Well worth it, BTW--some nice parks out there)

I'm with you that the vehicle tax is bullshit.  I'm against you with regard to how you'd probably like to see them paid for.  Just a hunch.

What's wrong with contracting a private firm to run them? Arizona's doing it with few, if any, of the terrible repercussions that are supposed to result when the for profit bastards ( !) are in charge. And if something as discretionary as outdoor recreation can't survive on user fees, then fuck it. I'm not willing to pay for it.

[ReaPsTA]

Various thoughts that may or may not represent a coherent opinion:

 - I like that it's a voter proposition because the environmental groups had an idea and they're essentially pitching it to the public.

 - On the other hand, this allows them to more directly guilt people into paying the vehicle tax based on propaganda, whereas politicians might not want to be seen as voting for higher taxes and vote against.  Essentially, while I like it in principle, this move seems extremely self-interested in a duplicitous way.

 - As usual, lobbying groups want more money thrown at a problem rather than going through the actual work of fixing the underlying factors causing it.

 - The fact it's a vehicle tax is stupid.  It all goes into the general fund anyway, right?  So why add yet more complication to the tax system to create the illusion of specifically paying for something the public sees as good?  To make it more palatable.

 - If I was a Californian, I guess I'd vote against.  It just seems like a waste of money that won't solve any real problems.

[EPICVIEW]

as always, ReaPsTa's view is very thought out and I agree with it.

[El Barto]

Hell, I live in Texas and I've already paid $18 to California State parks this year.  (Well worth it, BTW--some nice parks out there)

I'm with you that the vehicle tax is bullshit.  I'm against you with regard to how you'd probably like to see them paid for.  Just a hunch.

What's wrong with contracting a private firm to run them? Arizona's doing it with few, if any, of the terrible repercussions that are supposed to result when the for profit bastards ( !) are in charge. And if something as discretionary as outdoor recreation can't survive on user fees, then fuck it. I'm not willing to pay for it.

Perhaps things that benefit the public could be done at cost instead of for a profit. 

If the situation is this dire, then there probably won't be many people willing to take it on since the margin for profit is so tiny.  The government should fix the problems that prevent them from breaking even.  I think that'd be a better option than letting them all fall apart because there's no corporate savior to take them over for the pennies profit. 

[ddtonfire]

Don't trucks already help parks enough by spewing out healthy carbon dioxide which the trees absolutely love?

[William Wallace]

Hell, I live in Texas and I've already paid $18 to California State parks this year.  (Well worth it, BTW--some nice parks out there)

I'm with you that the vehicle tax is bullshit.  I'm against you with regard to how you'd probably like to see them paid for.  Just a hunch.

What's wrong with contracting a private firm to run them? Arizona's doing it with few, if any, of the terrible repercussions that are supposed to result when the for profit bastards ( !) are in charge. And if something as discretionary as outdoor recreation can't survive on user fees, then fuck it. I'm not willing to pay for it.

Perhaps things that benefit the public could be done at cost instead of for a profit. 

If the situation is this dire, then there probably won't be many people willing to take it on since the margin for profit is so tiny.  The government should fix the problems that prevent them from breaking even.  I think that'd be a better option than letting them all fall apart because there's no corporate savior to take them over for the pennies profit. 

What makes something a benefit to the public? Most of the goods and services we consume could probably be reasonably considered a public good, but we don't require the state to provide those. And the dire situation doesn't make the unprofitable; give the profit motive some credit. What harm do you see in giving privatization a shot, provided - for the sake of compromise - that the parks will be subject to some oversight?

[El Barto]

Out of curiosity, do any of those beaches fall into State Park domain?

And if something as discretionary as outdoor recreation can't survive on user fees, then fuck it. I'm not willing to pay for it.

I actually agree with you on that to some extent.  The problem is that the threshold for what constitutes survival changes dramatically when it's turned from public to private.  The State government (which I understand sucks terribly in Cali, but that's not the point here) only needs to operate it at the break even point.  The private sector would need to operate it at a profit level to justify their investment.  Lets say that all they care about is 10%, but maybe the parks can't earn that extra 10%, so they should be abandoned? 

[Nigerius Rex]

How are you coming to the conclusion that a corporation or private owner cant/wont turn the parks into assets?

[El Barto]

I'm concluding nothing.  I'm raising the point that profitability shouldn't be the determining factor in what gets to exist and what doesn't.   I haven't read any economic studies so I don't know what the situation there is, but saying that if the private sector can't operate it, fuck 'em, is just silly. 

[Nigerius Rex]

Why not? If a as an example park is turning a profit then it is attractive/useful enough to make people want to voluntarily spend money to enjoy it. If it isn't, then you are inefficiently subsidizing its existence with taxpayer money which is precisely what put California in the situation is now.

[El Barto]

So if something is only capable of recouping it's cost and nothing more, then it shouldn't exist?

[William Wallace]

So if something is only capable of recouping it's cost and nothing more, then it shouldn't exist?

Not sure if I want to say that absolutely; It depends on who or what you're talking about recouping its costs. But, generally speaking, that seems to be a reasonable standard. Otherwise you get this:

Why not? If a as an example park is turning a profit then it is attractive/useful enough to make people want to voluntarily spend money to enjoy it. If it isn't, then you are inefficiently subsidizing its existence with taxpayer money which is precisely what put California in the situation is now.

[El Barto]

I'm not suggesting that you subsidize anything.  I'm saying that something can have value even if it doesn't turn a profit. 

[Nigerius Rex]

And I agree, but I think the best option for the majority of projects California is attempting to control and fund like state parks would be to close them down or hand ownership over to firms who have a vested interest in attracting customers.