Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here is how New Jersey charges their fee for beaches. You wear the beach tag on a lanyard around your neck, or a wristband. An exorbitant fine if "caught slipping". PITA while swimming. You need a separate beach "tag" for each beach.
Okay, so who is going to monitor all those beaches? I guess you've never been to the Big Island. We barely have lifeguards, much less someone to check my beach tag.
How it'll work is that they will put fences and manned toll booths at all walkway and road entry to each site. Doesn't mean that'll apply to EVERY beach access and trails, just the major ones that has the ability to construct access control if there are walkways and parking.
AND it'll be a disaster, imagine all entrances to parks and trails having built structures and cages to filter people in and out. And sitting in long queues to show proof or if you don't have a visitor pass you would buy one at the toll both. Imagine being a local having to queue through that with the tourists . People will be pissed!
Okay, so who is going to monitor all those beaches? I guess you've never been to the Big Island. We barely have lifeguards, much less someone to check my beach tag.
If it ever becomes law, I would imagine it will be added to your package price or perhaps collected upon arrival.
I hope it doesn't pass. No doubt there would still be separate fees for Hanauma Bay, Haleakala, etc.
Hapuna Beach on the Big Island has self serve kiosks and signs saying non-residents need to pay. It is on the honor system. I have no idea what fraction of visitors pay, but there are usually people at kiosks when we pull in.
There used to be a manned booth at the entrance, but they changed to the kiosks during Covid. I would be surprised if they man the booth in the future.
I understand the sentiment that public lands should be accessible to all … but state parks and national parks have long had fees everywhere. I roam up and down the mainland west coast a LOT and there are fees at nearly every park just for day use, let alone their outrageous camping fees of $35 - $65 + per night that Hawaii camping parks don't charge more than about $10 for … heck, even the military campground at Bellows AFB - which are supposed to be perks for military only - charge $27 a night to pitch a tent, no hook-ups of course.
So no, this is not a unique ‘money-grab’ … it’s a lagging start at modest money-grabbing.
It costs money to maintain these parks - beach replenishment, garbage pickup, cleaning restrooms, and on and on. They don't pay for themselves. And with climate change - the costs are going to continue to rise replenishing these beaches, especially the man made ones.
On the one hand, many residents say they want the wealthier tourists - so they can certainly afford the fees. If it means some of the mainland hippies skip a trip, so be it.
It costs money to maintain these parks - beach replenishment, garbage pickup, cleaning restrooms, and on and on. They don't pay for themselves. And with climate change - the costs are going to continue to rise replenishing these beaches, especially the man made ones.
On the one hand, many residents say they want the wealthier tourists - so they can certainly afford the fees. If it means some of the mainland hippies skip a trip, so be it.
But is this truly a problem of the state needing money to maintain the parks and beaches? Tourists already pay hefty taxes for many things that should be going to sustain and maintaining the parks and beaches. This isn't like the state is hurting for money to keep these areas maintained.
But is this truly a problem of the state needing money to maintain the parks and beaches? Tourists already pay hefty taxes for many things that should be going to sustain and maintaining the parks and beaches. This isn't like the state is hurting for money to keep these areas maintained.
We can't even get a rainy day fund funded. Regardless - you don't do fees and taxes only because you need the money - you do fees and taxes and keep raising them until people are unwilling to pay them. I see no indication of that unwillingness and fees are taxes are an excellent way to not only keep the riff raff out but begin to limits the number of tourist.
Which is it - I hear complaints of over-tourism - yet programs to address it (fees and taxes) are all of a sudden bad.
If you don't want to do fees and taxes then the complaints of over-tourism shouldn't be a concern.
We can't even get a rainy day fund funded. Regardless - you don't do fees and taxes only because you need the money - you do fees and taxes and keep raising them until people are unwilling to pay them. I see no indication of that unwillingness and fees are taxes are an excellent way to not only keep the riff raff out but begin to limits the number of tourist.
Which is it - I hear complaints of over-tourism - yet programs to address it (fees and taxes) are all of a sudden bad.
If you don't want to do fees and taxes then the complaints of over-tourism shouldn't be a concern.
Eh, rainy day funds are leftover funds once everything else has been paid for that are put away for unexpected expenses, so not being able to secure funds for that isn't a red flag as far as maintenance of parks and beaches go.
And that may be one reason why you do fees and taxes, but part of the justification for taxes and the such usually is to fund specific programs/line items. When considering how high to raise taxes/fees, governments should and do consider the impact of people's willingness to pay.
As the legislature noted in the draft bill, the stated purpose of the bill is as I wrote:
Quote:
“Establish a visitor impact fee program, to be administered by the department of land and natural resources, as a license required by visitors for usage of Hawaii’s public beaches, parks, trails, coastlines, and environment. The purpose of the visitor impact fee program shall be to provide sustained funding for the protection, restoration, and care of Hawaii’s state-owned natural and outdoor recreational resources and build the resilience of these resources to the impacts of increased visitor use.”
Which is why I ask if this is actually needed as the state already heavily taxes tourists and hasn't had issue with paying to upkeep the tourist locations to date it seems.
If the purpose is going to be about over-tourism, many have pointed out that these places still seem to be jam packed, so even these fees don't seem to be slowing things down on that end, which only gives credence to the argument that this just seems like a naked money grab.
The state won't charge so much money where paying tourists actually balk at going to these things. And, given that residents aren't paying these fees, the state still needs tourists to come and maintain these beaches and parks. So, if the crowds are still pretty significant at the fees charged, what really is the point of these taxes and fees? I could see if state/city physically limited the number of people who could go to some of these attractions as I understand was done for Hanauma Bay, but just charging more money that tourists are happy to pay doesn't really seem about limiting crowd sizes.
Still, I do agree that those who complain about overcrowding shouldn't be simultaneously complaining about high fees that may be designed to reduce overcrowding (if that's their actual purpose). But, to be clear, while I appreciate fewer crowds when out and about, I don't exactly complain about it myself or request that the state take steps to limit these crowd sizes.
If the purpose is going to be about over-tourism, many have pointed out that these places still seem to be jam packed, so even these fees don't seem to be slowing things down on that end, which only gives credence to the argument that this just seems like a naked money grab.
The state won't charge so much money where paying tourists actually balk at going to these things. And, given that residents aren't paying these fees, the state still needs tourists to come and maintain these beaches and parks. So, if the crowds are still pretty significant at the fees charged, what really is the point of these taxes and fees? I could see if state/city physically limited the number of people who could go to some of these attractions as I understand was done for Hanauma Bay, but just charging more money that tourists are happy to pay doesn't really seem about limiting crowd sizes.
We simply don't have enough fees and taxes on tourists - you keep raising them over and over again until it makes a meaningful impact.
I'd start with Hanauma Bay - clearly $25 is not enough - I'd double it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. People will be pissed!
I could see if state/city physically limited the number of people who could go to some of these attractions as I understand was done for Hanauma Bay, but just charging more money that tourists are happy to pay doesn't really seem about limiting crowd sizes. 
