Re: Colorado state park system failing the people.

[vlj]

"Anonymous Sender" > sez:

> COLORADO SPRINGS - A senior citizen's vehicle pass nearly tripled in cost
> while other annual vehicle passes increased 10 percent under a set of fee
> hikes adopted today by the Colorado State Parks Board.

BFD. Since their not worth a dime to me, I don't care if they jack their
rates up to $1000 to get in.

VLJ

[Shashay Doofray]

Anonymous Sender > wrote in message

This post just proves what I have pretty much suspected all along, that
people in Colorado are, for the most part, idiots.

Having been forced to live in the state for the past 4 months I can tell you
that there are many, many, many better places to go (about 49 of them to be
exact), and anybody who decides to head elsewhere for their summer vacation
isn't missing much.

I'm told Montana and Wyoming are much nicer.

SD

[Kingfish]

:
: I'm told Montana and Wyoming are much nicer.
:
: SD
:

hahahahaha

go visit mt and wy, then get back to us..... assuming you've visited
Colorado for more than a day or two.

[Todd Bradley]

Anonymous Sender wrote:

I don't understand how any of these rate hikes is related to the park
system "failing the people." I guess if you judge success on the
grounds of ridiculously low prices, maybe. Does that mean that anything
with an increased price is a failure? Personally, I think $27 is a
steal for an all-you-can-eat annual park pass.


Todd.

[Steve Wolf]

What do you pay taxes for? In Ohio, our State Parks have no visitor fees.
We support them with out taxes. User fees work well for
infrastructure-related items such as airports or campgrounds. To pay to go
look at trees speaks to all that is wrong in the world.

Steve

> I don't understand how any of these rate hikes is related to the park
> system "failing the people." I guess if you judge success on the
> grounds of ridiculously low prices, maybe. Does that mean that anything

[MTV]

Steve Wolf wrote:
> What do you pay taxes for? In Ohio, our State Parks have no visitor fees.
> We support them with out taxes. User fees work well for
> infrastructure-related items such as airports or campgrounds. To pay to go
> look at trees speaks to all that is wrong in the world.
>
> Steve
>
>
>>I don't understand how any of these rate hikes is related to the park
>>system "failing the people." I guess if you judge success on the
>>grounds of ridiculously low prices, maybe. Does that mean that anything
>
>
>
I'd like to know how Ohio pays for parks without taxes or visitor fees, or
what the "user fees" are. Texas parks are pretty self-supporting, but cost
$2-3 for daily admission, $50 for annual pass, and campsites $12 (WE), $18
(WES) or $21 (Premium - lake fronts WES) per night. And the state parks are
rated in the top 5 in the US.

Marv

[Mark Jones]

"Anonymous Sender" > wrote in message
acolo.com...
> While the annual vehicle entrance pass will increase from $50 to $55, the
> "Aspen Leaf" pass for senior citizens will increase from $10 to $27.

It is really a tough thing when you only have to pay
a little less than 50% of the normal rate. It is kind
of pathetic to complain when you get this big of a
discount.

Just because you went from an 80% to a 50%+
discount doesn't mean that the current rates are
wrong. Expecting to get things for next to nothing
is not fair to the people who have to pay the full fee.

[Kingfish]

"Steve Wolf" > wrote in message
...
: What do you pay taxes for? In Ohio, our State Parks have no visitor fees.
: We support them with out taxes. User fees work well for
: infrastructure-related items such as airports or campgrounds. To pay to
go
: look at trees speaks to all that is wrong in the world.
:
: Steve

funny, but apples and oranges Ohio and Colorado....

MOST of Colorado is national forest, most of it is free. State parks entail
maintained trails, restroom facilities, etc. that are likely used in
majority by tourists, so taxing residents for this would serve to do nothing
but steal from the locals. You could explore Colorado for free for the rest
of your life. Some of the more expensive to maintain areas (and some of the
more fragile) charge a fee.....

[Shashay Doofray]

Kingfish > wrote in message
...
>
> :
> : I'm told Montana and Wyoming are much nicer.
> :
> : SD
> :
>
> hahahahaha
>
> go visit mt and wy, then get back to us..... assuming you've visited
> Colorado for more than a day or two.
>

Unfortunately, I have been going to Colorado (not by choice, but due to job
requirements), for 5 months every summer for the past four years. So I feel
that I know whereof I speak. Now, mind you, there are some NICE places in
Colorado - Colorado Springs for one, but where I happen to be: Durango, is
definitely NOT a good place to be. Of course, that is coming from a person
who wouldn't go outside unless her house was on fire.

My opinion is that Wyoming and Montana would HAVE to be better.

SD
who never worries about geting West Nile.

[Uncle Samuel]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 06:20:23 GMT, "Shashay Doofray"
> wrote:

>Kingfish > wrote in message
...
>>
>> :
>> : I'm told Montana and Wyoming are much nicer.
>> :
>> : SD
>> :
>>
>> hahahahaha
>>
>> go visit mt and wy, then get back to us..... assuming you've visited
>> Colorado for more than a day or two.
>>
>
>Unfortunately, I have been going to Colorado (not by choice, but due to job
>requirements), for 5 months every summer for the past four years. So I feel
>that I know whereof I speak. Now, mind you, there are some NICE places in
>Colorado - Colorado Springs for one, but where I happen to be: Durango, is
>definitely NOT a good place to be.

You must be on drugs.

It's a garden spot, one of the top tourist spots in the state.

Sheesh, open yer eyes and look around!

>Of course, that is coming from a person
>who wouldn't go outside unless her house was on fire.

Well that splains it...

>My opinion is that Wyoming and Montana would HAVE to be better.

And this opinion is based on what?

>SD
>who never worries about geting West Nile.

Never tempt fate...

[Shashay Doofray]

> Sheesh, open yer eyes and look around!
>

Let's see. Rocks. Trees. Dirt.

Yeeeee Haaaaaaa

Wyoming and Montana would have to be better because it would be almost
impossible for them to be WORSE.


SD

[Uncle Samuel]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 02:08:01 GMT, "Shashay Doofray"
> wrote:

>> Sheesh, open yer eyes and look around!
>>
>
>Let's see. Rocks. Trees. Dirt.
>
>Yeeeee Haaaaaaa

Mebbe you should leave, try somewhere a bit more watery...

>Wyoming and Montana would have to be better because it would be almost
>impossible for them to be WORSE.

You think they lack the aforementioned Rocky Mountain constants?

Are you 5 years old?

Do you need a binky in yer mouth?