Paul Rogers writes in this morning’s Mercury News that Santa Cruz Assemblyman John Laird wants to fund state parks by adding $10 to California’s annual car-registration fee.
Under his proposal, which is expected to face opposition from Republicans who call it a tax increase, a $10 annual surcharge would be assessed on the registration of all vehicles except trailers and commercial trucks.
In exchange, anyone driving a vehicle with a California license plate would get free year-round admission to any of the state park system’s 278 beaches, parks or museums – from redwood forests to Southern California sand dunes. Parks normally charge entrance fees between $6 to $10.
The proposal would become part of the Democrats’ draft state budget for the upcoming year if it clears a vote today in a Democratic-controlled budget committee, as expected.
Tempting, though it paves the way for using registration fees to subsidize a gazillion other state needs.
Then again, it’s only 10 bucks and my California license plates get me in free.
I would totally go for that. At this point I don’t remember the numbers but Arnold did reduce our car registration fees dramatically when he took office. I wouldn’t propose using such fees to pay for everything but if such funds were used for our parks, then great! I’d gladly accept that fee addition. And if it got more Californians out to visit the parks and to learn to value them as a result, all the better!
It doesn’t bother me to pay a feee to go hiking in a state (or otherwise) park, however I typically try and plan to be there all day when I pay.
Do you have special license plates? I’ve got a personalized CA license plate which I thought donated to the parks system or something? I’m curious if mine will get me a discount?
That’s not bad. At least the fees are only payed by people who are at least wealthy enough to register a car. There’s no public transit to most parks. Maybe up registration 5 bucks, and accompany that with a hike in usage fees. Depending on what happens, I will consider buying an annual pass.
If it gets people outside and exploring their local parks, I’m all for it. Best of all, I will personally save a fair amount of change each year that I can then spend on food. And wine!
While it’d be to my benefit, it’s basically a way for the majority to subsidize the minority of park users. What’s next? I say, increase the fees for the park users. $4-$6 to visit a park is way cheaper than going to a movie.
I know of one local hiking group that was formed with the idea that they would not hike at any park that charged a fee. I don’t think they objected to the fee so much as they wanted their hikes to have no cost to them. They have in fact gone to parks on occasions where they paid the fee anyway but I suspect that if fees are raised at the parks, they will go further out of their way to avoid those parks. And it is ashame really. They are missing out on some great parks.
The other thing I consider is that in paying taxes, I pay for things that I will probably never use myself like community colleges, or librairies, or fire fighters, or police and the like. But that is OK, I might need those services at some point and I hope they will be there. We are better off for them even if we don’t use them directly. And if I tripped tomorrow and broke my neck and became paralyzed and could never hike again, I would still want our parks to be there and supported with my tax dollars, fees, or otherwise.
And Z is right, $6 is way cheaper than a movie. Heck, a $10 fee on our car registration is cheaper than a movie with popcorn and a drink. And a lot healthier too. Well, at least as long as you don’t trip and break your neck anyway.
park fees are minimal. I wouldn’t mind paying the little $10 up front and being able to get in anywhere. Plus, parks would have sustainable income, for once.
I suspect half of this deal might be sneaked in … republicans might not begrudge, say, five bucks on car registrations, I suspect.
We’re already paying this. This is a redundant fee. We shouldn’t be penalized because of California’s failure to manage funds.