Bill giving residents priority at booking FL state parks

[plasticmaster]

If you're interested in Florida State Bill 76 which allows Floridians a one month head start at booking Florida State Parks campsites, here's Senator Hooper's presentation to committee. He begins at the 8:15 mark. If passed, it would basically eliminate non Floridians from camping at popular Florida State Parks, due to the competitive nature of reserving these sites. I believe his presentation is a little misguided though because I've observed every summer over the last 14 years at Bahia Honda at least 80 to 90% of the campers being from Florida.

https://www.flsenate.gov/media/videoplayer?EventID=1_ky7xx6qg-202301171330&Redirect=true

[JaxDad]

wapiticountry wrote:

JaxDad wrote:
“Subsidized” seems to be the wrong word.

From the Florida State Parks Foundation website;

“STATEWIDE ECONOMIC DATA

IN 2022, FLORIDA STATE PARKS & TRAILS SERVED MORE THAN 32 MILLION VISITORS GENERATING:
- $4.4 billion direct economic impact on local economies throughout the state,
- Over $267 million was contributed to the state’s general revenues in the form of state sales taxes,
- More than 55,000 jobs were supported by state park operations.”

According to media reports, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, which oversees the Florida Park Service, has a budget this year of $4.2 billion.

It looks like they return far more money to the economy than they take out.

Having a budget of $4.2 billion while generating $267 million in taxes implies a subsidy from the state of nearly $4 billion. Direct economic impact has no defined meaning. Is it business profit? Unlikely. Is it estimated sales? If so , the true economic impact on the community is much less. For example, if the park guest spends $100 on a camp stove made in China you need to subtract the cost of goods sold from the actual economic impact.
Those parks may have a huge impact on the micro economy of the nearby areas but they are clearly not self sufficient and depend upon continued support from the state’s general fund which is overwhelmingly dependent on taxes collected from residents.

Do you even understand the word “budget” as compared to “profit” or “loss”?

A “budget” is the total quantum of money involved.

By your concept, a “budget” of $4 billion but with revenue of $3.9 billion would mean a $4 billion loss.

In fact a newspaper article touting the new spending increase also stated that the Parks recouped a little over 54% of the their budget just from gate fees alone. It went on to say that they also created more than 61,000 direct jobs. I’ll bet the majority of those wages gets spent right back into the economy too.

[valhalla360]

JaxDad wrote:
“Subsidized” seems to be the wrong word.

From the Florida State Parks Foundation website;

“STATEWIDE ECONOMIC DATA

IN 2022, FLORIDA STATE PARKS & TRAILS SERVED MORE THAN 32 MILLION VISITORS GENERATING:
- $4.4 billion direct economic impact on local economies throughout the state,
- Over $267 million was contributed to the state’s general revenues in the form of state sales taxes,
- More than 55,000 jobs were supported by state park operations.”

According to media reports, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, which oversees the Florida Park Service, has a budget this year of $4.2 billion.

It looks like they return far more money to the economy than they take out.

Lots of random numbers with no distinction between resident vs non-resident spending.

And as someone else mentioned, Spending $4,200,000,000 to gain $267,000,000 sure doesn't sound like a big tax/profit maker...much more like a subsidy.

[valhalla360]

johnhicks wrote:
Staying an allowed 14 days at parks isn't exactly gaming the system. If that's not desired then reduce stays to seven days, three days or whatever. How is an ocupancy rate of 28 percent (weekend two nights out of seven) justifiable?

No but I've heard couples bragging how the guy will reserve for 14 days, then the gal will reserve the next 14 days...repeat.

No one suggests the occupancy will be 28%. Snowbirds who are not gaming the system could easily take advantage of midweek openings.

[JoeH]

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 ($$$).

Exactly--- there are 3,600 campsites within Florida Sate Parks... there are 36,000 hotel rooms on the Disney property itself. Add in the off premise rooms all around Orlando and every place throughout Florida and then all the condo's, Air BNB's, privately run campgrounds and you can see that state parks are a very tiny fraction of tourist accommodations in the state.

[Walaby]

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 ($$$).

Many people go camping and also go to Disney, Universal etc. Just because people camp doesn't mean they don't spend alot while there.

Tourists are integral to Florida's survival. Campers are tourists and spend a decent chunk of change every year.

But hey.. whatever.

[wapiticountry]

JaxDad wrote:
“Subsidized” seems to be the wrong word.

From the Florida State Parks Foundation website;

“STATEWIDE ECONOMIC DATA

IN 2022, FLORIDA STATE PARKS & TRAILS SERVED MORE THAN 32 MILLION VISITORS GENERATING:
- $4.4 billion direct economic impact on local economies throughout the state,
- Over $267 million was contributed to the state’s general revenues in the form of state sales taxes,
- More than 55,000 jobs were supported by state park operations.”

According to media reports, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, which oversees the Florida Park Service, has a budget this year of $4.2 billion.

It looks like they return far more money to the economy than they take out.

Having a budget of $4.2 billion while generating $267 million in taxes implies a subsidy from the state of nearly $4 billion. Direct economic impact has no defined meaning. Is it business profit? Unlikely. Is it estimated sales? If so , the true economic impact on the community is much less. For example, if the park guest spends $100 on a camp stove made in China you need to subtract the cost of goods sold from the actual economic impact.
Those parks may have a huge impact on the micro economy of the nearby areas but they are clearly not self sufficient and depend upon continued support from the state’s general fund which is overwhelmingly dependent on taxes collected from residents.

[GTO66]

I guess i'm not following the thought that on how all weekdays would be open while weekends are booked. You cannot book a weekend without booking the prior open days.If the thought is that you book all days than cancel the prior day to the weekend than like i stated one way to stop that is to require the whole reservation to be cancelled along with a 50% charge.

[johnhicks]

Staying an allowed 14 days at parks isn't exactly gaming the system. If that's not desired then reduce stays to seven days, three days or whatever. How is an ocupancy rate of 28 percent (weekend two nights out of seven) justifiable?

[GTO66]

I don't believe the bill is intended to lock out snowbirders just to improve the chances of folks who live in the state, and not have most sites locked out for 14 days.I stated in an earlier post that i didn't believe a month was needed or fair. I was told the reservation fee goes to the state as they now operate the resevation system so thats why even walkin are charged. Even though florida has no state income tax, property taxes are high. I think states have different ways to fund services as it should be.Also i've been told Georgia residents get a brake on property taxes after a certain age. Bottom line money has to come from somewhere if you want the services.

[JaxDad]

“Subsidized” seems to be the wrong word.

From the Florida State Parks Foundation website;

“STATEWIDE ECONOMIC DATA

IN 2022, FLORIDA STATE PARKS & TRAILS SERVED MORE THAN 32 MILLION VISITORS GENERATING:
- $4.4 billion direct economic impact on local economies throughout the state,
- Over $267 million was contributed to the state’s general revenues in the form of state sales taxes,
- More than 55,000 jobs were supported by state park operations.”

According to media reports, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, which oversees the Florida Park Service, has a budget this year of $4.2 billion.

It looks like they return far more money to the economy than they take out.

[wapiticountry]

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.

[ronharmless]

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 ($$$).

[Walaby]

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

[JaxDad]

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.