Comments on: Dakota County to Spend $26m on New Park?!

By: Commissioners Turn Away $90k Treehouse Plans | Bill Roehl

Commissioners Turn Away $90k Treehouse Plans | Bill Roehl — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 13:02:11 +0000

[...] to anyone else that they visit the park. With overzealous estimates believing the park will see 1/2 million visitors in 2030, do you believe this something we need to worry about right [...]

0 0

By: Tim

Tim — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 22:00:23 +0000

I paid $35/night for a hotel room in St. Cloud a few weeks back. The place was worn and bare-bones, but safe and minimally clean enough.

0 0

By: Joey

Joey — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 21:44:36 +0000

Is that a requirement of The Wife? ;)

0 0

By: Bill

Bill — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 21:42:44 +0000

I generally will sleep with my clothes on at either ;-)

0 0

By: Jason2

Jason2 — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 21:26:46 +0000

I get what you’re saying. I personally don’t think county parks hold a candle to state parks (although I do enjoy both for different uses), however, especially for camping.

A $30 motel room might feel safer but I think I’d feel cleaner sleeping outside. :)

1 0

By: Bill

Bill — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 20:29:58 +0000

While campsites are generally known to be very safe, the fact that you have a lock on your door makes me a little more safe than a thin sheet of nylon between me and potential dangers :)

(I love to camp and do so at every possible opportunity. No, I will not pay for a State Park pass or to camp on my own land. I use free camping at a local county park instead.)

0 0

By: Joey

Joey — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 20:27:22 +0000

“And yes, you can find hotel rooms for $30/night.”

Look out for Norman Bates. ;)

0 0

By: Bill

Bill — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 20:25:28 +0000

It’s not just $22/night. You have to pay $25 + reservation fees + tax. Then you have to bring in your shit (tent, equipment, etc). And yes, you can find hotel rooms for $30/night.

0 0

By: Jason2

Jason2 — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 20:23:12 +0000

You can find a motel room for less than $12 to $22 a night (the fee for a standard state park campsite)?

2 1

By: Bill

Bill — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 20:07:26 +0000

For me the pass to get in isn’t as big of a deal as charging enough for camping to make it cheaper to stay at a nearby motel.

0 0

By: Joey

Joey — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 20:03:51 +0000

“Young families with kids don’t have that $25 fee to use those parks for the few times a year that they can get away from work long enough to use them.”

Those same families have no problem dropping $50 a month (and often more) on cable or Dish TV or $30 a month on a data plan for their $300 smartphone or $1,500 (give or take $700) on a new HD TV or $50 for dinner once a month (or week).

I’m a young family with kids (upper twenties, 3 kids 2 and under) and we’re a single income family with plenty of expenses on our plate. You’ll be hard-pressed to find anyone though, no matter how frugal, who doesn’t have $25 for discretionary spending. Besides, people who are actually too poor to afford an entrance fee are usually too poor to even afford the car and gas to get to the park.

I get your point and as someone who’s a huge patron of the state and national parks, I’ve often questioned whether we should really be charging people to use what’s ours. But a $25 fee for a state parks pass or $80 for the national parks pass seems reasonable to me and besides, I’m a fan of fee-based taxation over simply taxing what I earn or own. I equate it with paying to register my vehicle each year.

3 0

By: Marty

Marty — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 19:41:58 +0000

State parks should be for all the people, not just the ones with incomes above the median for the state. Young families with kids don’t have that $25 fee to use those parks for the few times a year that they can get away from work long enough to use them. The state took all the most scenic and interesting sites long ago for parks, why aren’t they free when the people paid for them? I can afford the $25 now, but back when our four kids were young we found it to be too expensive. Had they kept the annual sticker price at $5.00 they would not be bemoaning the lack of park visitors. Three times last year we have entered a park to buy an annual permit only to find nobody there to sell us one. The minute some state union cries about something, they threaten to close the parks.

0 1

By: dsw

dsw — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 19:26:13 +0000

“If the State would make the State parks free or even reasonable, we wouldn’t need county parks.”.

A 2012 State Park Permit is $25. How is that not reasonable?

3 0

By: Bill

Bill — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 18:53:39 +0000

Marty,

I’d prefer that counties have parks and not the State. There is more local control that way over the resources and local residents have a much bigger say in the process.

0 0

By: Marty

Marty — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 18:51:02 +0000

I agree with O.B.B. that it should be left as natural as possible but accessible via a few paved trails and adequate parking at at least two entrance points. They could throw in a few picnic tables here and there and some benches for sitting a spell and restroom facilities. I can not imagine what they have in mind that could take 26 million dollars. Many counties in Minnesota have NO county park at all. If the State would make the State parks free or even reasonable, we wouldn’t need county parks. But Government thinking is always if there are too few users, raise the fee. Sorry but it doesn’t work like that in the real world. A seller can ask any fee, but the market determines the price.

0 0

By: O.B.B.

O.B.B. — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 18:07:04 +0000

I am very glad this area will be a park. I have been to the area several time while working for the county a few years back. It is a wonderful track of land.

However, why does the county feel like this park needs a host of amenities? Isn’t there value in providing a nice, quiet, simple park? Is the goal of a park really to maximize visitors? That just cheapens the park while making it more expensive to build and maintain.

3 0

By: Tim

Tim — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 06:09:28 +0000

C&V, that’s a fair point. In this particular case, though, I don’t think developing this park to the extent that is planned is the right way to go. There are other parks in the area that are already developed, and recently at that (I didn’t have a problem with what was done at Lebanon). Now maybe it will change at some point in the future, but for now I think they are better off starting small.

2 0

By: John

John — Fri, 02 Mar 2012 03:25:40 +0000

Five million is a lot of cash. On the other hand Lakeville’s park director recently commented that just a simple neighborhood park costs half a million. That’s basically a playground, baseball field, and and a very small parking lot. If that’s the case I can see where a regional park could get close to $5 million pretty quick.

I might have missed this, but do we know what the funding sources are for that $5 million? Is any of this coming from the legacy funding we voted for a few years back or is this strictly from property taxes?

0 0

By: Chapter&Verse

Chapter&Verse — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 22:41:37 +0000

What price do we agree to pay for ‘quality of life’? On another thread on LL someone stated that governments are, in part, expected to address the quality of life for its citizens. One might argue that parks add to our quality of life. So, is it just the cost of the park? Or is it that government should be so small as to not address quality of life issues? …just provide the absolute bare minimum for our safety? Isn’t it a matter of degrees here?

2 0

By: Bill

Bill — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 21:00:52 +0000

Marty, the image is probably too large. Shrink it down and post it again.

0 0