Custer State Park. 175 site new camp proposal
https://www.argusleader.com/story/news/2022/01/18/custer-state-park-south-dakota-governor-kristi-noem-plan-10-million-dollars-campsites/6513414001/
Forum Discussion
First, I am not opposed to state park camping expansion, I do use the system, not for the cheaper option, but for the experience.
It is fairly arguable that government lodging option is a direct competition option with the private sector, when there is equal and fair opportunity. When the gov. makes their own rules and does not fairly compensate the local community with PILT payments, becoming a burden which should be an asset on the local community .
In 2008, SDGFP sec. Vonk berated us private camp operators during a gfp special commission meeting concerning rates and PILT payments.
He. stated ' If you would just quit your bitching you should be glad you get the overflow we bring in' . Not so. paid Beaurocrat thinking.
There are comparables in Virginia and Alabama, that I know of, where the state parks can expand, but must charge a rate comparable with the surrounding community and reimburse the local comminity for services and costs.
The proposal is running into strong opposition, amongst state legislators, state and local Chambers of Commerce, the DOT, County First responders, County commissioners, wildlife groups, the list goes on.
Governor Noems statement is not correct, in 2009 when the existing CSP campsites were electrified - at a cost of $1Mil - 15 existing sites were converted for the new camping cabins and 35 new sites built for the other 35. Another $1 mil. ( which were built by prison internees)
The proposed location is misrepresented as 'western' in the park, which would place it near emergency services with easy, quick access and off a major highway easily driven by large vehicles. it is not. Wildlife loop road is in the south eastern part of the park, remote, narrow, no shoulders, during high season wait times to turn onto or off it from US 16A can be frustrating. Then theres the inevitable Bison traffic jam.
Add in the cost, she proposed, works out to $ 56k / site, would not recover the bond, maintenance any where near the 10 year timeline. or show any visitor an enhanced experience. Private parks can build comparable sites for $25 k Including buying the land. And pay property taxes to the county which the state park does not.
SD state parks charge high daily, weekly and annual entry fees, offer cheap camp fees. For an overnighter it is prohibitive. For a longer stay, fair, for a resident that can use the parks more, a good deal.
I know The location proposed for this camp. Its not one you or the local South Dakotans would want. Treeless, away from trails,lakes, just an open prairie that would be one big traffic jam an hour from nowhere.
It is fairly arguable that government lodging option is a direct competition option with the private sector, when there is equal and fair opportunity. When the gov. makes their own rules and does not fairly compensate the local community with PILT payments, becoming a burden which should be an asset on the local community .
In 2008, SDGFP sec. Vonk berated us private camp operators during a gfp special commission meeting concerning rates and PILT payments.
He. stated ' If you would just quit your bitching you should be glad you get the overflow we bring in' . Not so. paid Beaurocrat thinking.
There are comparables in Virginia and Alabama, that I know of, where the state parks can expand, but must charge a rate comparable with the surrounding community and reimburse the local comminity for services and costs.
The proposal is running into strong opposition, amongst state legislators, state and local Chambers of Commerce, the DOT, County First responders, County commissioners, wildlife groups, the list goes on.
Governor Noems statement is not correct, in 2009 when the existing CSP campsites were electrified - at a cost of $1Mil - 15 existing sites were converted for the new camping cabins and 35 new sites built for the other 35. Another $1 mil. ( which were built by prison internees)
The proposed location is misrepresented as 'western' in the park, which would place it near emergency services with easy, quick access and off a major highway easily driven by large vehicles. it is not. Wildlife loop road is in the south eastern part of the park, remote, narrow, no shoulders, during high season wait times to turn onto or off it from US 16A can be frustrating. Then theres the inevitable Bison traffic jam.
Add in the cost, she proposed, works out to $ 56k / site, would not recover the bond, maintenance any where near the 10 year timeline. or show any visitor an enhanced experience. Private parks can build comparable sites for $25 k Including buying the land. And pay property taxes to the county which the state park does not.
SD state parks charge high daily, weekly and annual entry fees, offer cheap camp fees. For an overnighter it is prohibitive. For a longer stay, fair, for a resident that can use the parks more, a good deal.
I know The location proposed for this camp. Its not one you or the local South Dakotans would want. Treeless, away from trails,lakes, just an open prairie that would be one big traffic jam an hour from nowhere.
