Bill giving residents priority at booking FL state parks

ronharmless wrote:
If no out of state campers were allowed in state parks in Florida how much would “tourism” revenue go down? Precious little considering Disney, Universal Studio, Cape Canaveral, private parks and condos full of snowbirds, etc. Some of you seem to have the belief that as campers you’re integral to Florida’s survival and should have a vote in their affairs. I think you’re overestimating your value ($$$).

Agree 100%. The people that propose that argument are the same ones who think RVs staying overnight in the parking lot are key to Walmart’s profitability.

If no out of state campers were allowed in state parks in Florida how much would “tourism” revenue go down? Precious little considering Disney, Universal Studio, Cape Canaveral, private parks and condos full of snowbirds, etc. Some of you seem to have the belief that as campers you’re integral to Florida’s survival and should have a vote in their affairs. I think you’re overestimating your value ($$$).

Any Florida resident out there can tell us what taxes go to subsidize the parks? I know you don't have an income tax. So, is it property taxes or sales taxes? Or more likely a combination at the bottom line off the revenue of the state?

Assuming sales tax is a component, then out of state residents contribute to that tax base.

Tourists flock to Florida's 663 miles of beaches and warm climate. Tourism, Florida's biggest industry, contributed $111.7 billion to the state's economy in 2016. While much of that money went to hotels and recreation, other sectors of the Florida economy get a big boost from out-of-towners. Visitors spent almost $16 billion on retail purchases as well. Using the average sales tax rate of 7%, that's 1.1B contributed to the tax base. Some of the more popular tourist spots, I suspect, have higher sales tax rate.

From what I've seen/read with a little research, sales tax contributes 80% of the tax revenue for the state. So, I would think us non-residents who contribute to that tax base should have an input and receive some consideration.

It's certainly a complicated question. How to implement, how to enforce, how to keep people from gaming the system, how to try to still support the huge tourism industry (which includes snowboarders) which is the state's number one industry.

Mike

valhalla360 wrote:

JaxDad wrote:
Now you’re talking about a whole other kettle of (really stinky) fish, PROFIT.

I was talking about “costs” and more particularly “subsidies”.

Further still, there’s a whole other topic which I won’t go into, other than to mention it, not discuss it, that is can you even use the word “profit” when you’re talking about a public service?

Obviously there will be a few how would like the sale of public lands to pay down debt and have “State Parks” become “private” for-profit parks, but that’s not the subject here.

So you are suggesting the land has no value if it's owned by the citizens of the state but privately owned property has value? That makes no sense.

Hate to see it happen but these valuable pieces of property could be sold in many cases for astronomical amounts and (at least in theory) used to reduce taxes. It's only if you decide to ignore all the financials that you can claim it's not subsidized.

I guess you didn’t read my post.

I made our reservations 11 months ago for a FL state park. I can only reserve for 14 days. The fee for that stay is $499 and change so a grand for a month. There are private parks out there for less. The attraction to the state parks is for the bigger sites and usually less mayhem.
I have no way to accurately make a statement about the percentage of over 65 FL residents that are in their state parks at any given time. I do know that if the bill passes that percentage will increase but the state's revenue will decrease as no full rate campers will be able to get in.
If I were in charge I would raise the camping fees to $35 a night plus the $7 "utility" charge, still give the FL seniors their 50% discount but raise it to 70 yoa, and not offer an early portal.
But that's just me.

JaxDad wrote:
Now you’re talking about a whole other kettle of (really stinky) fish, PROFIT.

I was talking about “costs” and more particularly “subsidies”.

Further still, there’s a whole other topic which I won’t go into, other than to mention it, not discuss it, that is can you even use the word “profit” when you’re talking about a public service?

Obviously there will be a few how would like the sale of public lands to pay down debt and have “State Parks” become “private” for-profit parks, but that’s not the subject here.

So you are suggesting the land has no value if it's owned by the citizens of the state but privately owned property has value? That makes no sense.

Hate to see it happen but these valuable pieces of property could be sold in many cases for astronomical amounts and (at least in theory) used to reduce taxes. It's only if you decide to ignore all the financials that you can claim it's not subsidized.

johnhicks wrote:
So what is going to be done about state parks being mostly empty five nights out of seven because weekends are booked instantly, blocking out anyone who wants to stay longer? Force one-week or two-week reservations only, all others first-come first-served? It's part of the same tangled mess.

If snowbirds are just using them as a short term vacation, go in for 4-5 nights midweek or check last minute openings when people cancel. We've done exactly this when going into prime areas during longer term travels.

If you are planning to game the system staying long term over the winter by jumping between parks or worse getting reservations in your name then your wife's name then repeat, you lose and I'm OK if the residents want to curb that.

I'm guessing part of the reason I see so many Florida plates in southern Georgia state parks is because of the earlier 13 month reservation window and that they extend senior and veteran discounts to everyone that's eligible, and no out of state surcharges. More state parks with full hookups available probably helps too. We'll be leaving a full hookup site in Georgia on Monday for an electric and water Florida state park site. We won't have a full hookup site again until we move to the national Salt Springs Recreation Area where of course we get our Senior Access pass discount.

I have no problem with residents wanting first dibs. It's their taxes and their state after all. Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina have terrific state parks. If I can't find a spot in FL then my friends and family find somewhere else. It's part of the excitement of travel.

GTO66 wrote:
I posted a few days ago with the comment that one hour should be long enough to allow florida residents time to book early. Some others stated it wouldn't make things easier for florida residents I disagree as you wouldn't be competing with the whole world. One other way would be to limit stays to 7 days. When I try to book during snowbird season most sites are book for the limit 14 days that tells me its most likely a snowbirder. I also standby my statement that the whole stay must be cancelled as well as a 50% fee. I also disagree that it would have much effect on folks seeking a warmer climate.

I think I am one who said it wouldn't make things easier. What I was trying to convey, is for the popular sites, one hour likely would not appreciably increase your odds of getting a site. Yes, for sure, a Fla resident would get the site during that first hour, BUT if the popular sites say, have 2000 people trying to hit at the same time, and lets say for the sake of argument, half are non residents, the other have residents. Then what would be the odds that you get the site during that hour when 1000 people are hitting it?

I suspect the numbers hitting the popular parks for online reservations are much more than than 2000, so it just furthers the point. I do agree, a Fla resident would get the spots in the first hour, but an individuals likelihood isn't appreciably improved.

As far as effect on people looking for warmer climate, if the popular parks are all gone within the first hour, how can it NOT impact that segment of consumers? It's not like people are flocking down to boondock in the swamp. People come down to visit nice places, stay at nice parks, and enjoy themselves. If those places are effectively out of reach for them, because every day they log in after the first hour, and all sites are gone, then they will go elsewhere out of Florida.

Mike