[randian]

Originally Posted by vaughanwilliams

If anyone makes a profit administering state parks, I want to see "We The People" make it, not some faceless corporation who is beholding to no one except their stock holders.

Last I looked, saving money is just as good for the government as making money. You are not being given the choice between profit for the government and profit for the corporation. Your choice is between parks being shut down because the government can't afford them and letting somebody profit. Preferring a shutdown to allowing somebody to profit is absurd. That screws both the government (who is saddled with a burden it can't afford) and the park-going public.

The corporation isn't beholden to the contract it signed with the state? You know, the one that details how the facility is to be operated, what fees can be charged, what capital improvements the company is to make, how much of the fees the company must pay to the government, and so on.

[beachmouse]

But it's utterly and outright false to claim that the parks on the list are inherently financially troubled. Honeymoon Island is the most visited park in the state park system, drawing a million visitors in a typical year, and generating an operating surplus that subsidizes other parks in the system. It doesn't need a campground to be 'profitable'.