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

[bucky]

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.

[valhalla360]

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.

[valhalla360]

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.

[Dutch_12078]

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.

[magnusfide]

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.

[Walaby]

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

[monkey44]

Most of the times we've seen a difference for residents happens at the check in, when ID can be viewed. Even here in Florida, in earlier years, we got Vets and Senior discount only at the gate when we paid and showed our ID. Now that has changed some, and we get the discount but also pay a registration fee, which was not the case in the past. In the past, a gate check-in within two days required no registration fee. Now, even a two-day in person check-in requires a registration fee, which in a sense nulifies the discount. The main difference now means the registration company gets that fee, not the park.

Personally, on in-person check-in, I'd rather see the park get the fee instead of a company that does nothing on an inperson check-in. As I've heard, now the NPS is also requiring a check-in fee regardless of in-person or short - one or two - day stays. Makes little sense to me from a park revenue position, but once again, many things today are all about the money and not about the service.

[GTO66]

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.

[padredw]

other states gave some type of preference to their residents

I will not dispute the results of that study, but I can say that has not been my experience (60 years including tent camping; 25 years with fifth-wheel.) I have "camped" in every state except 4 small states in New England. I cannot recall ever being treated differently in making a reservation because I was not a resident of that state. If this has changed, I believe it is an unfortunate change.

We live in a great nation of "sister states". The principle I am advocating is "reciprocity" such as exists with recognition of driver's license and auto insurance (to give some simple examples). In all my years of camping I have assumed this to be the basic operating principle and I regret to see such barriers even being considered.

Just the opinions of an old man who may not be as wise as he thinks.

[JoeH]

padredw wrote:
I dare to quote from an earlier post I made (now hopelessly lost back about three pages and now completely overlooked).

The principle of reciprocity is important to "travelers" such as we still are more than it is to full timers. We travel from state to state with the feeling that we are guests, but we know that for people traveling to Texas we are the hosts. I suggest that should be the norm. I can just imagine if we get state after state making such distinctions and passing laws. I look back over 25 years of RV traveling (and 60 years of state park camping) with great appreciation of the hospitality of almost every state in the nation. **Especially Florida... added to this quote and fully true.**

This law is not likely to affect the few years I have left to travel, but I think it would be a tragic decision and a terrible precedent for other states. Think carefully and remember to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

When I did my study back in 2010, 18 other states gave some type of preference to their residents.... Florida is just late to the game in giving the owners of the parks(state residents) proper access.

[padredw]

I dare to quote from an earlier post I made (now hopelessly lost back about three pages and now completely overlooked).

The principle of reciprocity is important to "travelers" such as we still are more than it is to full timers. We travel from state to state with the feeling that we are guests, but we know that for people traveling to Texas we are the hosts. I suggest that should be the norm. I can just imagine if we get state after state making such distinctions and passing laws. I look back over 25 years of RV traveling (and 60 years of state park camping) with great appreciation of the hospitality of almost every state in the nation. **Especially Florida... added to this quote and fully true.**

This law is not likely to affect the few years I have left to travel, but I think it would be a tragic decision and a terrible precedent for other states. Think carefully and remember to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

[monkey44]

We love our state parks ... we don't even attempt to make reservations because it's become so difficult ... party because of winter weather and snowbirds, but partly because prople cheat the system.

We don't care much about the reservation system because we don't plan far enough ahead to reserve. When we camp, we just call around a few state parks and ask if they have a single day or two or three mid-week available, and if so, we take it.

For those that need set vacation time, we believe Florida residents should have a early window and a specific number of sites in each park that can be reserved for Florida residents ... then, after a week / month whatever, they become open to all. We do need a way to take care of our residents as a priority ... other states do it - higher rates for tourists and no discounts that residents receive. But, if residents own the land, pay the taxes that maintain it, and can't use it - that becomes unfair to the residents. We've been in plenty of states that cost more, no discount, and no special perks unless you are a resident. SO, what's fair is fair. We always manage, but we are retired and pretty flexible with our time, if not our bodies so much anymore 🙂 ...

SOme folks / families need more regimented times for camping - days off, and vacations, etc. Should be a way to make everyone happy.

If we made a specific number of state sites available for early reservations - Florida residents only - maybe a week or so, that might make the eliviate some of the reservation problems in state parks. Private parks are on their own, and do whatever they want - they are private 🙂 ...

[JaxDad]

valhalla360 wrote:

JaxDad wrote:
From a business finance point of view I think the “subsidy“ idea is being misused, or possibly misunderstood.

If 2 different land owners are looking to calculate their “costs” of operating an RV park, in one case though the land has been in the family for several generations, the other just bought the land (at current market value) and has to carry financing on it, the “costs” will be VERY different. Ditto a park, public or private, that built decades ago and the servicing costs are now paid for.

That is NOT to say the long term owners are “subsidized” in any way, their costs are just lower.

Nope, when you calculate return on investment, it's the same.

If you have a $50million dollar park that's been in the family for generations, if you are only covering your operating costs plus say a $100k/yr profit, your ROI is absolutely horrible because you are effectively subsidizing your customers.

From a financial perspective, you would be far better off to sell and invest the money. Even at a measly 2% return, you would be able to take $1mil/yr profit with a lot less headaches.

Only difference if you are in debt to your eyeballs, the bank effectively owns the park and they have no interest in subsidizing your customers. Unless you have some external source of money (...like the taxpayer), you lose your option of subsidizing or the bank will take it away from you when you fail to make your payments.

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.

[Walaby]

valhalla360 wrote:

No one is suggesting you can't use the state parks just that locals get first chance at the sites. Particularly for working class residents, it may be more of a challenge to hang out on line trying to work the reservations compared to a retired snowbird who has tons of time on their hands and lots of flexibility to switch parks if one is full.

If Im a working non resident, can I have priority as well? I too have a challenge hanging out on line trying to make reservations. In fact, I think Im at more of a disadvantage because Im further away, and my "ones and zero's", have a longer travel time on the internet (grin).

I struggle to see how this could be enforced. If the site asks for a copy of Florida drivers license, all I have to do is use my sister, and her info, and make reservation. I take her with me when we check in. She spends the night. Done.

If sites are truly gone within seconds, as plasticmaster says, then I would say Florida residents still wouldn't have much of a better chance to get a reservation. Everyone is still hammering at the website trying to reserve a site. Maybe a small percentage of FL residents get a site that they might not have, but the majority will still miss out.

I still say this is nothing but a feel good bill. Everyone will feel better because something has passed that gives a perception of favoring the residents but in reality, you will still have basically the same chance to get a spot as you do now.

But if Florida wants to do this to feel good, at the expense and risk of impacting their billions of dollars in tourism, not much we on RV.net will be able to do about it.

Mike

[johnhicks]

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.