Oregon SP looking at Flexible Pricing

[rhagfo]

Oregon SP looking at Flexible Pricing, interesting news item. Listened to story on news this morning, could be by Park, the more popular could cost more the less popular, less used could be less costly.

Link to story

[cpaulsen]

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!

[Wavesprite]

I'll pay more for Oregon State Parks. I have never seen so many nicely kept, clean, campgrounds with the nicest hosts around!!!!

[RedRollingRoadb]

Supply 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.

[goducks10]

No 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.

[DrewE]

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.

[rhagfo]

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???

[DutchmenSport]

Indiana 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_Choic]

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.

[NCWriter]

Florida 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.

[ksg5000]

Thanks 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.

[Stormy_Eyes]

It makes sense to charge more for one parks than others. To me, it also makes sense to charge more for popular weekends than less popular midweek stays. And more for peak season than off season. Pricing is a blunt instrument, but it might encourage flexible people to select less popular times/places. Many private parks organize such pricing policies; perhaps your state could manage it, too.

[rhagfo]

Text of the bill HB 2318

The bill allows for increasing the fees at certain parks and also decreasing it at others to balance attendance.
While a difference in cost likely will not get someone to change from staying at the coast to staying at Cottonwood Canyon. It may get some to stay at less used near coastal park.

[korbe]

Yep, the price will only go up, not down.

[F-TROUP]

If Politics are promoting this then the most popular parks will double in price, every state needs more money. That will push mom and pop to the unpopular parks and their price will go up nothing goes down. JMHO