4 ms·

Only on HN will you see somebody unironically suggest a bidding system for access to a park.

by qlm 8y ago

nickpp 8y ago
Oh, I am in favor of bidding systems for access to everything, but especially for government held, "public" resources. Such systems would point out things people find valuable and encourage entrepreneurs and markets to create and offer alternatives. I am still interested in hearing why this is such a bad idea (other than not being a very popular one, of course).
- timmaah 8y ago
  Going for a hike or camping in on land preserved for the people by the people owned by the people should now be an exclusive playground for the rich? No. Just no.
  - nickpp 8y ago
    Well, let it be the exclusive playground of the lucky (winners of the lottery) then. I am resigned to the fact that I won't reach Mt Whitney's summit during summer again in my lifetime...
    - njarboe 8y ago
      You can do it as a day hike from the Mitre basin to the south. I was there in Sept, no people, amazingly beautiful. Send me an email (see profile) for details.
    - timmaah 8y ago
      That is basically how campsites in crowded national parks operate. I'm ok with it.
    - int_19h 8y ago
      I'd much rather it be the playground of the lucky, than the playground of the rich. Public lands are held in common trust in the name of all citizens equally, not in proportion to their wealth. If there's not enough access time to go around, then a lottery is an obvious way to approximate equitable access.
- longerthoughts 8y ago
  >I still want to hear why this is such a bad idea (other than not being a very popular one, of course) Because it effectively prevents parts of the public from being able access a public resource. If that isn't enough, think about what happens to the public's opinion of National Parks if most people can't afford to use them. At best the public would likely vote to reverse the new fee structure, at worst you create a public that outright opposes conversation of public land and parks are slowly dismantled.
  - nickpp 8y ago
    Parts of the public can't access these crowded parks right now anyways. It's literally impossible for everybody to access the parks at the same time. But I'll concede your second argument because it's politics. Not the first time politics or religion win over rationality either...
- dnautics 8y ago
  It would be a great idea, especially if coupled with (publicized) programs to get people who couldn't afford it in
ghaff 8y ago
I'm just stunned (but probably shouldn't be) that someone would not only openly advocate for but double down on the idea that access to national parks should be determined by who has the most money. It's not only on HN but the other places probably involve private clubs and drinking whiskey.
- nickpp 8y ago
  You do realize that this is how access is granted to pretty much everything else in this world, and with huge benefits. Why not have the same benefits for the national parks? Some are in desperate need of work and financing.
  - ghaff 8y ago
    OK. This is something worth spending a few downvotes on. Are you simply stupid or are you just an unempathetic ahole? Since you're on HN, I'm guessing the latter. Even speaking as someone who is relatively more conservative in economic matters than most here, this is just obnoxious. I have zero issue with charging a reasonable use fee on federal lands. There are costs associated with using those lands and, as I wrote elsewhere, double-digit dollars are not any real deterrent to using those public lands. But now we get to rationing. Yes. It's sometimes necessary. We do it all the time based on price and it's a very efficient market-based mechanism. And I usually favor it. But it's not a great mechanism for public lands. Partly this is just an issue of fairness. We don't (theoretically) allocate votes on the basis of income. We shouldn't allocate park access either. There's also just a pragmatic matter of creating a perception that the national parks are only for the rich. To be sure, they're not really for the poor in any case. But it's not a good look to rub that in anyone's face.
    - nickpp 8y ago
      Call me stupid if you want, but I am actually convinced that the poor's access to national parks would be improved under my scheme. Just not during the most requested times, when rich aholes betting each other would easily make enough cash to subsidize access for free plenty of other (less popular) times. Certainly not a politically popular opinion though, you are very right on that one...

Only on HN will you see somebody unironically suggest a bidding system for access to a park.

by qlm 8y ago

Only on HN will you see somebody unironically suggest a bidding system for access to a park.

Oh, I am in favor of bidding systems for access to everything, but especially for government held, "public" resources. Such systems would point out things people find valuable and encourage entrepreneurs and markets to create and offer alternatives. I am still interested in hearing why this is such a bad idea (other than not being a very popular one, of course).

timmaah 8y ago
Going for a hike or camping in on land preserved for the people by the people owned by the people should now be an exclusive playground for the rich? No. Just no.
- nickpp 8y ago
  Well, let it be the exclusive playground of the lucky (winners of the lottery) then. I am resigned to the fact that I won't reach Mt Whitney's summit during summer again in my lifetime...
  - njarboe 8y ago
    You can do it as a day hike from the Mitre basin to the south. I was there in Sept, no people, amazingly beautiful. Send me an email (see profile) for details.
  - timmaah 8y ago
    That is basically how campsites in crowded national parks operate. I'm ok with it.
  - int_19h 8y ago
    I'd much rather it be the playground of the lucky, than the playground of the rich. Public lands are held in common trust in the name of all citizens equally, not in proportion to their wealth. If there's not enough access time to go around, then a lottery is an obvious way to approximate equitable access.
longerthoughts 8y ago
>I still want to hear why this is such a bad idea (other than not being a very popular one, of course) Because it effectively prevents parts of the public from being able access a public resource. If that isn't enough, think about what happens to the public's opinion of National Parks if most people can't afford to use them. At best the public would likely vote to reverse the new fee structure, at worst you create a public that outright opposes conversation of public land and parks are slowly dismantled.
- nickpp 8y ago
  Parts of the public can't access these crowded parks right now anyways. It's literally impossible for everybody to access the parks at the same time. But I'll concede your second argument because it's politics. Not the first time politics or religion win over rationality either...
dnautics 8y ago
It would be a great idea, especially if coupled with (publicized) programs to get people who couldn't afford it in

ghaff 8y ago

I'm just stunned (but probably shouldn't be) that someone would not only openly advocate for but double down on the idea that access to national parks should be determined by who has the most money. It's not only on HN but the other places probably involve private clubs and drinking whiskey.

nickpp 8y ago
You do realize that this is how access is granted to pretty much everything else in this world, and with huge benefits. Why not have the same benefits for the national parks? Some are in desperate need of work and financing.
- ghaff 8y ago
  OK. This is something worth spending a few downvotes on. Are you simply stupid or are you just an unempathetic ahole? Since you're on HN, I'm guessing the latter. Even speaking as someone who is relatively more conservative in economic matters than most here, this is just obnoxious. I have zero issue with charging a reasonable use fee on federal lands. There are costs associated with using those lands and, as I wrote elsewhere, double-digit dollars are not any real deterrent to using those public lands. But now we get to rationing. Yes. It's sometimes necessary. We do it all the time based on price and it's a very efficient market-based mechanism. And I usually favor it. But it's not a great mechanism for public lands. Partly this is just an issue of fairness. We don't (theoretically) allocate votes on the basis of income. We shouldn't allocate park access either. There's also just a pragmatic matter of creating a perception that the national parks are only for the rich. To be sure, they're not really for the poor in any case. But it's not a good look to rub that in anyone's face.
  - nickpp 8y ago
    Call me stupid if you want, but I am actually convinced that the poor's access to national parks would be improved under my scheme. Just not during the most requested times, when rich aholes betting each other would easily make enough cash to subsidize access for free plenty of other (less popular) times. Certainly not a politically popular opinion though, you are very right on that one...