Originally Posted by Roody
How do you cheapos who oppose fees propose that governments pay for parks? I am not aware of a magical free park fairy, so the choices seem to be fees, taxes, or some combination.
You will gladly pay $8 for a 2 hour movie, or even $80 for a 3 hour concert, but you don't want to pay $4 to ride your bike all day in a beautiful setting? Maybe you are not such dedicated cyclists after all. Remember, besides providing cheap recreation, parks also preserve habitats and wilderness, even in or near urban areas. I think your priorities are all screwed up!
It's not about being cheap, it's about making sense.
In essence what they are doing is a conditional payment, which the cost of should have been eaten in form of tax, or the tax could be gutted and charge more for people going in.
Subsidizing is nice in that it allows some things to exist at all (thank god!), but also bad in that it hides the true expenses of things, and also charges those who never use them.