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.
