Forum Discussion
- cpaulsenExplorer
rhagfo wrote:
Marine By Choice wrote:
If this passes then why not charge more for water during hot weather, more for food when one is hungry and more for gas as your tank nears the empty mark?
Just another way to get more money for no additional service(s). Any time government is involved with something the only solution is to charge more.
Just my humble opinion.
Well I see it as currently charging the same for a Chevy as a Cadillac. Oregon currently has a good funding system, and they are constantly making improvements to parks just recently Nehalem Bay State Park had several loops upgraded to 50 amp services.
The intent is to make some of the lesser used parks more attractive by offering a lower rate, and getting a fair rate for high demand parks.
Would you pay a few dollars a day extra for this sight???
X2! - WavespriteExplorer III'll pay more for Oregon State Parks. I have never seen so many nicely kept, clean, campgrounds with the nicest hosts around!!!!
- RedRollingRoadbExplorerSupply and demand. It is not a difficult concept to understand.
For those that are unaware Oregon State Parks do not receive funding from the general fund. For the out-of-staters that don't like the current or proposed pay structure...oh well. More space for me. - goducks10ExplorerNo complaints here. Ore St parks are some of the nicest CG's I've been too. If I have to pay a couple $ then so be it.
- DrewEExplorer II
NCWriter wrote:
Haven't seen site prices vary within a SP or other public campground for a premium location so far, but private parks usually charge more for sites on the water and less for those noisy sites right by the highway. So it's not surprising state officials are looking at marketing their wares as if they were privately owned.
Many of the Vermont state parks do have premium sites that are a few dollars more than the other, non-premium sites. They're clearly indicated on the campground maps (dark circles with white site numbers, vs white circles with dark numbers, if memory serves).
I don't have any problem with such variable pricing schemes, particularly if the costs overall are kept fairly reasonable. In fact, I would generally be in favor of having some more expensive sites if it means the rest are less expensive than they would otherwise be, so that there are more options available for people of relatively limited means.
I'd also prefer be able to get into a popular, nice park, even if it means paying a little more, than forever be excluded because all the sites were booked up within 17.3 milliseconds of them becoming initially available for reservations. Maybe a sliding scale where the initial reservation prices start high and gradually go down as time progresses would work out decently well. - rhagfoExplorer III
Marine By Choice wrote:
If this passes then why not charge more for water during hot weather, more for food when one is hungry and more for gas as your tank nears the empty mark?
Just another way to get more money for no additional service(s). Any time government is involved with something the only solution is to charge more.
Just my humble opinion.
Well I see it as currently charging the same for a Chevy as a Cadillac. Oregon currently has a good funding system, and they are constantly making improvements to parks just recently Nehalem Bay State Park had several loops upgraded to 50 amp services.
The intent is to make some of the lesser used parks more attractive by offering a lower rate, and getting a fair rate for high demand parks.
Would you pay a few dollars a day extra for this sight??? - DutchmenSportExplorerIndiana has different pay rates for different days of the week, and summer vs winter too. And some state parks require 2 night stays now too over holiday week-ends.
- Marine_By_ChoicExplorerIf this passes then why not charge more for water during hot weather, more for food when one is hungry and more for gas as your tank nears the empty mark?
Just another way to get more money for no additional service(s). Any time government is involved with something the only solution is to charge more.
Just my humble opinion. - NCWriterExplorerFlorida SPs vary by location - in the Keys sites can cost twice as much ($36) as those in northern areas away from the coast or attractions ($18)..
Haven't seen site prices vary within a SP or other public campground for a premium location so far, but private parks usually charge more for sites on the water and less for those noisy sites right by the highway. So it's not surprising state officials are looking at marketing their wares as if they were privately owned. - ksg5000ExplorerThanks for the heads up - going to call my rep and tell them to vote no. Akin to a tax hike which should go to Oregon voters rather than legislature.
About Campground 101
Recommendations, reviews, and the inside scoop from fellow travelers.14,716 PostsLatest Activity: Oct 15, 2013