Zephyr Cove Charging $75 a night!

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Nevada Beach campground which is only about a mile and a half from Zypher Cove. A wonderful campground, if you can get in, run by USFS. No cable tv, no full hookups, no electricity but lots of trees and walking distance to the lake..even a place for dogs to play off leash. Yes, it is also operated by a concessionaire. I seem to recall that it was $35 a night but also takes the old folks discount.

Well, it IS Lake Tahoe. The neighbors have a copper roof on their vacation home. Having lived Reno/Tahoe for decades, we realized we couldn't afford the area any longer.
$75.00 is a bit much, but consider the cost of a day at Disney.
See ya out there......

The government has a lot on its plate and at the end of the day CG's are low on the priority list. If leasing the land allows the government to make money on the CG's vs. spending money to subsidize the CG. I'm all for it.
The government has more critical things to do with our funds than subsidize full hook up CG's.

avoidcrowds wrote:
If Aramark doesn't do a good job, they will lose the contract. There are checks and balances. The government doesn't just give them the contract, then forget about them.

True Dat! Yosemite comes to mind. Long time contract was awarded to another company.

"is not going to support the campground as much as it is going to support the concessionaire"

WesternRVParkOwwner said, and it makes sense, that the concessionaire pays the government for the contract. Yes, the concessionaire makes money, but so does the government. It is not all free money for the concessionaire. What the government gets, I would imagine some of it still goes to the less-popular campgrounds.

Yes, a company makes money, but that is why every business exists. You seem to feel that any company is going to funnel as much money as they can into their own profits. If Aramark doesn't do a good job, they will lose the contract. There are checks and balances. The government doesn't just give them the contract, then forget about them.

avoidcrowds wrote:
While the Govt. used to operate all the campgrounds, they were being subsidized by other sources of revenue (our taxes). So, we all were paying something for the campgrounds. With concessionaires operating the campgrounds, taxpayers should be paying less, or maybe zero, and those of us who use the campgrounds pay for them. I am okay with me paying for what I use, and others that don't use it not subsidizing my activities. But, I don't live in California.

I don't think anyone is saying it should be free. Just that it should be affordable to the average citizen as much as possible.

As for the taxpayers not having to pay, that is great. However, when a for profit concessionaire takes over the campground, that additional money paid by those camping is not going to support the campground as much as it is going to support the concessionaire.

Normally, fees paid to one very popular campground will help support other less popular campgrounds. This means that folks can have the option of where they want to stay. When for profit concessionaires take over a very popular campground, those moneys go into corporate pockets - not back into the campground system. So those lesser known campgrounds often end up losing money that keeps them in operation. A lot depends on the individual contract and the business plan of the concessionaire.

It's not a black and white answer. As I said above, I can see both sides.

And again, Aramark does not have a great reputation. I wonder how people will feel about these rates when Aramark doesn't provide upkeep to this "resort" at a level consistent with a resort versus a USFS campground.

WesternRVParkOwner has the best explanation of concessionaires under contract with the Govt, any paying a fee to the Govt. And, "Just because the land is publicly owned doesn't automatically mean whatever is operated on that land should be free."

While the Govt. used to operate all the campgrounds, they were being subsidized by other sources of revenue (our taxes). So, we all were paying something for the campgrounds. With concessionaires operating the campgrounds, taxpayers should be paying less, or maybe zero, and those of us who use the campgrounds pay for them. I am okay with me paying for what I use, and others that don't use it not subsidizing my activities. But, I don't live in California.

As I said in an earlier post, if you don't want to pay the fee to stay in the Resort, other options around Lake Tahoe are available, in NF campgrounds. For instance, Fallen Leaf Lake campground is $35/night. No hookups. I would expect to pay more for hookups elsewhere, as is the case at the Resort. There are choices. Don't want to pay $75/night (really, $85.50 with taxes)? Stay somewhere else nearby.

Enroute to property I own south of of Incline Village, 5 acres on the lake with full hookups will be my 12 year Olds grandson first trip in my rig left Delaware yesterday.

toedtoes wrote:
I get both sides, but I agree with Yosemite Sam that it LOOKS bad when a government owned property considers itself a "resort" and charges such high rates.

I do hope Zephyr Cove stays a rare minority in USFS campgrounds.

And not just USFS.

I saw the same thing in Olympic National Park.

The 'resort' and cabin areas are well maintained and fully staffed.

The campgrounds are however, self-managed (there is no ranger out there) and it's zero maintenance that you won't even distinguish entries into each specific sites and some unusable with uncollected toppled tree trunks and limbs.

And yes, many people are cheap when it comes to paying fees to park. In my effort to not become a crotchety old lady, I try hard to remain reasonable about prices.

But when a public campground suddenly becomes a "resort" and raises their rates to such an extent, this is not about supporting the agency but about profit making for the concessionaire. And, IIRC, Aramark is not a great concessionaire with above grade services.