For State Parks, the Answer is Yes

waterloo-cabinsThe Oakland Press published an editorial last week about Michigan’s state parks and a new funding proposal:

No one will debate the need to maintain our parks and make them accessible to residents and tourists.

But is a fee increase really the best way to do it?

We don’t think so.

If you don’t like this optional fee, what’s your solution, Oakland Press?

They have none.

We submitted the following rebuttal last Thursday, which does not appear in their on-line edition:

The recent Oakland Press editorial regarding a state park funding proposal missed the mark.

This proposal does not penalize those who do not use our state parks and state forest recreation sites. Those residents can simply opt-out and not pay the $10 fee.

And there is no reason to hide this fee. Michigan residents have a strong tradition of supporting their state parks and natural resources. This proposal trusts that many residents will opt to pay a $10 fee to ensure this heritage is preserved for this generation as well as those that follow. There’s no reason to hide this support.

And it should be noted that since 2004 none of our taxpayer dollars go towards our state parks.

But beyond funding, this proposal greatly reduces the DNR’s need to staff toll booths. Rather than be cashiers, state park staff can actually accomplish work within the park and provide interpretive programming for park visitors.

And finally, it is imperative that we keep and maintain our state parks and forest recreation areas if we have any hope of growing tourism to help rebuild our state economy. Most states cannot compete with our bountiful natural resources. It’s time we take advantage of that.

To learn more about the optional fee proposal for funding Michigan State Parks, visit the new web site, www.OurMichiganParks.org.

Tags: , ,

One Response to “For State Parks, the Answer is Yes”

  1. Joshua Duggan Says:

    WELL SAID!

Leave a Reply