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.
My understanding, from the article, is that the pass would only apply to State parks. So places like Waikiki Beach, Ala Moana Beach Park, Kapiolani Park, etc would not have a pass requirement under this bill. Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but that is how it reads to me.
Generally speaking, if the pass is only required for the 50 State parks, then I don’t really have a problem with it. If it were required for places like Ala Moana Beach Park and Kapiolani Park, for example, then I think it’s really excessive.
I also have a great deal of skepticism with these type of programs. The cost to run and enforce the program vs the revenue generated. Also, what is the purpose for the pass ? Is it to lessen the impact on certain areas ... or generate revenue ? If it is to lessen impact, then maybe the result is it just shifts the impact to non-fee places. Or doesn’t reduce impact at all because people just pay for the pass.
My personal feeling is that taxes already paid by tourists, as well as the exponential impact of tourist dollars spent into the local economy are significant already. And if there’s not enough money to take care of parks, then I’d question the management of existing funds.
My personal feeling is that taxes already paid by tourists, as well as the exponential impact of tourist dollars spent into the local economy are significant already. And if there’s not enough money to take care of parks, then I’d question the management of existing funds.
Then what is the alternative? Just have over 10+ million tourists come to Hawaii every year?
How else do you get the tourists number down other than more fees and taxes? That is really the only mechanism the State and Counties have.
My understanding, from the article, is that the pass would only apply to State parks. ..
"Any visitor age 15+ who visits a state park, beach, state-owned forest, hiking trail, or other state-owned natural area on state-owned land must pay an impact fee to obtain a license good for one year from the day of the license purchase (violators will be fined)."
I know that the state wants to require reservations and payment in advance for use of Pololu valley on Big Isle, and it's not a park. One of the "stewards" present at the parking lot informed me of this in January.
"Any visitor age 15+ who visits a state park, beach, state-owned forest, hiking trail, or other state-owned natural area on state-owned land must pay an impact fee to obtain a license good for one year from the day of the license purchase (violators will be fined)."
I know that the state wants to require reservations and payment in advance for use of Pololu valley on Big Isle, and it's not a park. One of the "stewards" present at the parking lot informed me of this in January.
Is it the state or local activists wanting to do that?
There used to be camping areas and rope swings and walking trails down in the valley for years. Then last year all those areas became sacred, and now they are all closed off. The people that drove that (I assume they are also the ones manning the parking lot) would have the valley closed to all visitors if they had their way. I am not sure that is what the state wants. But, maybe they will cave into them just like they have essentially done with TMT.
Last edited by KohalaTransplant; 03-21-2022 at 06:53 PM..
Then what is the alternative? Just have over 10+ million tourists come to Hawaii every year?
How else do you get the tourists number down other than more fees and taxes? That is really the only mechanism the State and Counties have.
The powers that be should be honest if that's their purpose. Because the official purpose of the legislation is not about getting tourist numbers down.
Then what is the alternative? Just have over 10+ million tourists come to Hawaii every year?
How else do you get the tourists number down other than more fees and taxes? That is really the only mechanism the State and Counties have.
I guess I am irritated because most of the services mentioned in this thread were previously covered by taxes we pay. Fiscal mismanagement for the past few decades have put cities, counties, and states in financial binds and the solution seems to be individual fees for every service.
At the same time, I got my fill of loud, abrasive, low-class visitors over the past couple of years. I am so glad they can't easily bring guns with them on Hawaiian vacations or we would look like Miami.
Since when are politicians honest - especially in Hawaii?
Well I'm going by what they report. I can't pretend to be inside of their heads to get to a "true" motivation and purpose. Per the public record, this effort doesn't seem to have anything to do with limiting crowd size; and if it did, they would be doing a **** poor job at it as I don't see anyone seriously claiming that--based on history--the fees they've charged had any impact on limiting the number of tourists . . . I go by actual results here and statements of purpose, not by what I think the politicians are actually up to. And that isn't something I'd expect even Hawaiian politico types to mislead about as you have more than a few of them who are vocal about wanting to cut back on the number of tourists.
Is it the state or local activists wanting to do that?
There used to be camping areas and rope swings and walking trails down in the valley for years. Then last year all those areas became sacred, and now they are all closed off. The people that drove that (I assume they are also the ones manning the parking lot) would have the valley closed to all visitors if they had their way. I am not sure that is what the state wants. But, maybe they will cave into them just like they have essentially done with TMT.
I didn't notice any of those things missing this winter. There were one or two camping groups, we hiked to the lookout. The persons stopping and counting each hiker at the pavement were pleasant to talk with. They appeared to be state employees who were sold on the cause. You could be right, that activists may have been the impetus for this, I don't know.
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.
