Two bills in the legislature trying to address the park system.

[DesotoCountyDawg]

I know there was some discussion here about the state of the park system in Mississippi and there’s currently two bills that try to address that.

https://yallpolitics.com/2022/02/10...TTuE01lhiPoy6FwIN1oKEAbXyy7fzfd_4XExqYhiEMkqg

 

[Smoked Toag]

Outside all the legal speak, at least attention is being brought to it.

 

[The Fatboy]

I'd rather they use the taxes from sporting goods to fund the proposed trust. Allowing the senate to decide the amount will only inevitably lead to them cutting off money

 

[Smoked Toag]

I'd rather they use the taxes from sporting goods to fund the proposed trust. Allowing the senate to decide the amount will only inevitably lead to them cutting off money

Good point. Seems that over the last 20 years or so, much of the resources have been spent on HuNtIn N fIsHiN rather than state parks, and I guess it's all about who is in power at the time and what they want to do.

 

[greenbean.sixpack]

Easy solution, fund the busiest parks, shut down or sell the rest. Being the poorest state in the nation, we can't fund so much unnecessary state programs. Outside of the Coast and northeast corner of the state few are going to come to the 'Sip for recreation/vacation. We also need to cut out most sports programs at JCs, especially football (as it is so expensive). We are funding 14 programs!?!? Only two other states fund half of that many, Texas only funds 6 JC football programs. Most other southern states don't fund any.

 

[mstateglfr]

Easy solution, fund the busiest parks, shut down or sell the rest.

View attachment 23851

 

[Smoked Toag]

Easy solution, fund the busiest parks, shut down or sell the rest. Being the poorest state in the nation, we can't fund so much unnecessary state programs. Outside of the Coast and northeast corner of the state few are going to come to the 'Sip for recreation/vacation. We also need to cut out most sports programs at JCs, especially football (as it is so expensive). We are funding 14 programs!?!? Only two other states fund half of that many, Texas only funds 6 JC football programs. Most other southern states don't fund any.

This is a situation where you need to quit being so GD conservative. Parks are about quality of life. I'm sure you're just fine living on your 5 acres with a pond and Trump sign in Rankin County or wherever, but the rest of the people need some outdoor recreation areas as well. It's not all about attracting outsiders, it's about helping our own. Many Mississippians go to Alabama/Tennessee/Arkansas for their nicer parks. Perhaps a few could be shut down or sold here or there. But it's not what the strategy should be unless it's just obvious and a place sees hardly any traffic.

JC football? WTF does that have to do with anything, totally different area.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

Okay Tatertot, just stay in the governor's mansion and let the grownups decide on things.

 

[Duke Humphrey]

That would be the position of the Lt. Governor and state Senate.

https://www.northsidesun.com/most-r...d-them-house-senate-odds#sthash.g7ojhBqk.dpbs

 

[Maroon Eagle]

More so the State Senate.

Last paragraph of that article:

Hosemann said that, as former secretary of state, he has a record of championing public lands as he led the state’s acquisition of Cat Island off the Coast and thousands of acres statewide. He said he would oppose any privatization that restricted public access to parks or raised prices drastically. On Thursday he said that he supports the current Senate proposal to have some privatization of park operations, but that he would oppose selling any park lands to private entities.

The boldface is my emphasis.

 

[greenbean.sixpack]

This is a situation where you need to quit being so GD conservative. Parks are about quality of life. I'm sure you're just fine living on your 5 acres with a pond and Trump sign in Rankin County or wherever, but the rest of the people need some outdoor recreation areas as well. It's not all about attracting outsiders, it's about helping our own. Many Mississippians go to Alabama/Tennessee/Arkansas for their nicer parks. Perhaps a few could be shut down or sold here or there. But it's not what the strategy should be unless it's just obvious and a place sees hardly any traffic.

JC football? WTF does that have to do with anything, totally different area.

Just another example of major expenditures we get little return on. We waste/mismanage so much money on resources we get little return on. We put an outstanding military museum inside the fence on Camp Shelby, it probably averages one visitor per day (and those are mostly out of state soldiers on post for training). We built a very nice Grammy Museum in Cleveland, a tiny city that, other than DSU students, most people don't frequent. Tons of other places to put these that would enhance tourism (tax dollars) for the state. Our elected leaders repeatedly make stupid decisions with our limited financial resources, pouring money into a state park in the middle of BFE that very few visit, it just another example. State parks that are heavily visited, heck yeah let's fund them and make them nice.

I understand QoL, but if it is a resource in an area with little population, it may not be worth the expense. There are state highways and bridges in rough shape, I'd rather prioritize our funds into that than a lightly visited state park that has little appeal. We need to make smart decisions, not emotional decisions.

 

[maroonmadman]

If we privatize the parks you can expect to pay more in fees to access the parks. If we rely on the gubmint then those tax dollars will have to come from somewhere. Either way we're going to wind up footing the bill. I remember how a lot of these parks used to look and function. I would like to get back to those days which would mean funding DFW adequately so they can maintain the parks. This privatization of the parks could make them more expensive than the average Mississippian could afford. Being affordable to the average taxpayer is one of the main attractions of our state parks. Don't screw us out of that.

 

[Bill Shankly]

Hopefully this comes through. Our parks are in bad shape. Some of them could be really something with a little work.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

Yeah, paying more is to be expected.

For example, some of the parks recently started up doing a form of glamping. I don't know if I'd be interested in that but maybe some of y'all are...

 

[Smoked Toag]

Just another example of major expenditures we get little return on. We waste/mismanage so much money on resources we get little return on. We put an outstanding military museum inside the fence on Camp Shelby, it probably averages one visitor per day (and those are mostly out of state soldiers on post for training). We built a very nice Grammy Museum in Cleveland, a tiny city that, other than DSU students, most people don't frequent. Tons of other places to put these that would enhance tourism (tax dollars) for the state. Our elected leaders repeatedly make stupid decisions with our limited financial resources, pouring money into a state park in the middle of BFE that very few visit, it just another example. State parks that are heavily visited, heck yeah let's fund them and make them nice.

I understand QoL, but if it is a resource in an area with little population, it may not be worth the expense. There are state highways and bridges in rough shape, I'd rather prioritize our funds into that than a lightly visited state park that has little appeal. We need to make smart decisions, not emotional decisions.

I agree on the bolded part. But that's more of an organizational deal than funding. I'm sure whoever footed the bills for those things had some say so.

But yeah, Mississippi is fragmented. What if the Grammy and Military museum had gone in Jackson, along with the Civil Rights museum and the others? Would have been nice.

We probably are much closer to agreeing than I initially realized. I just hate when folks go directly to 'CUT COSTS!!!'.

 

[mstateglfr]

Just another example of major expenditures we get little return on. We waste/mismanage so much money on resources we get little return on. We put an outstanding military museum inside the fence on Camp Shelby, it probably averages one visitor per day (and those are mostly out of state soldiers on post for training). We built a very nice Grammy Museum in Cleveland, a tiny city that, other than DSU students, most people don't frequent. Tons of other places to put these that would enhance tourism (tax dollars) for the state. Our elected leaders repeatedly make stupid decisions with our limited financial resources, pouring money into a state park in the middle of BFE that very few visit, it just another example. State parks that are heavily visited, heck yeah let's fund them and make them nice.

I understand QoL, but if it is a resource in an area with little population, it may not be worth the expense. There are state highways and bridges in rough shape, I'd rather prioritize our funds into that than a lightly visited state park that has little appeal. We need to make smart decisions, not emotional decisions.

Maybe if a park has more funding, it will have more appeal, and therefore be used more.
I agree that bridges and roads also need funding. Schools need funding too.

1- responsible spending is vital.
2- perhaps continually cutting funding isnt a successful way to improve services.

 

[johnson86-1]

More so the State Senate.

Last paragraph of that article:



The boldface is my emphasis.

Most people that talk about privatizing state parks aren't talking about selling any park lands.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

I agree on the bolded part. But that's more of an organizational deal than funding. I'm sure whoever footed the bills for those things had some say so.

But yeah, Mississippi is fragmented. What if the Grammy and Military museum had gone in Jackson, along with the Civil Rights museum and the others? Would have been nice.

We probably are much closer to agreeing than I initially realized. I just hate when folks go directly to 'CUT COSTS!!!'.

The Military Museum is a consolidation of the old War Memorial & Camp Shelby museums.

It was going to be either at Camp Shelby or Jackson anyway.

Maybe it could have been in Hattiesburg itself?

I like the idea of fragmentation. It allows communities outside Jackson to have showcases and tourism money could potentially flow throughout the state.

You'd think there'd be a Mississippi Museum Trail or something like that to promote touring the state's museums...

 

[johnson86-1]

If we privatize the parks you can expect to pay more in fees to access the parks. If we rely on the gubmint then those tax dollars will have to come from somewhere. Either way we're going to wind up footing the bill. I remember how a lot of these parks used to look and function. I would like to get back to those days which would mean funding DFW adequately so they can maintain the parks. This privatization of the parks could make them more expensive than the average Mississippian could afford. Being affordable to the average taxpayer is one of the main attractions of our state parks. Don't screw us out of that.

It could, but it almost certainly won't. With the possible exception of the park in hancock county with the water park that I think is the one of the only ones operates in the black, most of our state parks are going to continue to be low amenity parks. Even if they put a little more money into the parks, if they are currently having to staff parks with PERS eligible employees, then they will be able to get some labor savings out not having to put a 18% or whatever it is load on payroll for a benefit that's probably only valued at 6 or 7% by most employees.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

Most people yeah but you know there are senators and legislators who think closer to what GB proposed and frankly that's shortsighted.

Most Southerners would say that the first priority would be to make sure the land stays in the family or with a good steward.

 

[IBleedMaroonDawg]

Hopefully this comes through. Our parks are in bad shape. Some of them could be really something with a little work.

I have really been impressed with the Texas Park system since I moved here. They combined it with their parks, hunting, fishing, and wildlife services and keep all of them funded under the same hat. They keep this system of parks very well taken care of with updated facilities. I know you don't have the same amount of money spent to collect from as Texas and but at I think it's a good model to look it may be gather some ideas from.

https://tpwd.texas.gov

 

[GloryDawg]

If you have never been to Grand Gulf state park it is worth the drive. Since you would close might as well go to Windsor Ruins.

 

[Mr. Cook]

This is a situation where you need to quit being so GD conservative. Parks are about quality of life. I'm sure you're just fine living on your 5 acres with a pond and Trump sign in Rankin County or wherever, but the rest of the people need some outdoor recreation areas as well. It's not all about attracting outsiders, it's about helping our own. Many Mississippians go to Alabama/Tennessee/Arkansas for their nicer parks. Perhaps a few could be shut down or sold here or there. But it's not what the strategy should be unless it's just obvious and a place sees hardly any traffic.

JC football? WTF does that have to do with anything, totally different area.

This would be a wise investment. At some point, Mississippi will need to attract those outside the state to relocate to Mississippi in order to survive -- but it better start retaining some people, too. This is a stepping stone of investing in infrastrcucture.

As for "QOL," this is something Mississippi has on the whole disregarded for decades. Love the state dearly, but honestly - those who run it or have run it can't shoot straight even if they can get their $4!+ together.

 

[Mr. Cook]

...And see a huge cooling tower at the most powerful nuclear plant in the US

 

[The Usual Suspect]

This would be a wise investment. At some point, Mississippi will need to attract those outside the state to relocate to Mississippi in order to survive -- but it better start retaining some people, too.

At some point?* I saw a chart a couple of weeks ago that showed migration during covid the last 2 years. Mississippi and Louisiana were the only 2 states in the South that did not gain population big time.

 

[greenbean.sixpack]

Most people yeah but you know there are senators and legislators who think closer to what GB proposed and frankly that's shortsighted.

Most Southerners would say that the first priority would be to make sure the land stays in the family or with a good steward.

Doing away with a park in BFE that few people visit? Shortsighted would be continuing to allocate money to it (what we usually do). Shutting it down, selling it, leasing it, etc., is the smart move. The parks that have the most visitors and are in reasonable drives of populations centers or near other attractions (Sardis, Enid, Grenada, Pickwick) keep them and fund them.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

Doing away with a park in BFE that few people visit? Shortsighted would be continuing to allocate money to it (what we usually do).

Greenbean— Not only are you shortsighted but you’re 100 percent wrong about how funding has been the past several years and I posted this very same article earlier this year when there was another discussion about parks:

Rep. Bill Kinkade, a Byhalia Republican who leads the Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks Committee, acknowledged state leaders have let the parks system deteriorate in recent years. Parks funding over the past two decades was slashed nearly 60% as the Legislature focused limited dollars elsewhere. But Kinkade said priorities are changing.

As I mentioned before, be quiet and let the grownups who are more knowledgeable and don’t resemble mindless parrots make good decisions.

Link to article dated last year: Here.

 

[greenbean.sixpack]

Greenbean— Not only are you shortsighted but you’re 100 percent wrong about how funding has been the past several years and I posted this very same article earlier this year when there was another discussion about parks:



As I mentioned before, be quiet and let the grownups who are more knowledgeable and don’t resemble mindless parrots make good decisions.

Link to article dated last year: Here.

Son, i realize you probably live in a cute little "build it and they will come" fantasy land. It's adorable, it really is, and we need people like you, just not making fiscal decisions with our very sparse tax dollars, we have enough idiots spending our money as it is.

I'll try to make this simple, imagine you bought a house in NE Jxn 20 years ago, you paid $200k and have been renting it out for the past several years. In the meantime, the neighborhood/city has continuously degraded. It is getting harder and harder to rent it at a point where it is profitable, plus the house will soon need expensive repairs and upgrades. The house today may only be worth $150k, so do you pump more into, knowing (mostly due to location) it is not a desirable property and you won't ever get enough rent to remain in the black? No, you unload it for what you can get for it. Sometimes it may make sense to spend a little on it to increase the sales price, but you get rid of it as soon as you can. Say you own a similar house in Flowood or Madison (desirable locations), it may make sense to put a lot of money into it.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

Son, i realize you probably live in a cute little "build it and they will come" fantasy land. It's adorable, it really is, and we need people like you, just not making fiscal decisions with our very sparse tax dollars, we have enough idiots spending our money as it is.

Foghorn—

The state legislature wants to increase investment.

The question is how.

In the meantime, I suggest you lay off the liquor and go to back to bed with Miss Prissy.

 

[Mr. Cook]

I'll try to make this simple, imagine you bought a house in NE Jxn 20 years ago, you paid $200k and have been renting it out for the past several years. In the meantime, the neighborhood/city has continuously degraded. It is getting harder and harder to rent it at a point where it is profitable, plus the house will soon need expensive repairs and upgrades. The house today may only be worth $150k, so do you pump more into, knowing (mostly due to location) it is not a desirable property and you won't ever get enough rent to remain in the black? No, you unload it for what you can get for it. Sometimes it may make sense to spend a little on it to increase the sales price, but you get rid of it as soon as you can. Say you own a similar house in Flowood or Madison (desirable locations), it may make sense to put a lot of money into it.

This is a dubious comparison. You're comparing a governmental agency to a private enterprise (even if it a sole proprietorship). Furthermore, you elected to use a simple payback method, totally ignoring the time value of money or IRR.

For sport, let's use your anology: Unless your a slumlord, you might be netting 10% on the house in the best of all situations. If you got into this game, chances are you'd have multiple houses because you knew it was a long play. (Otherwise, if your were really smart, you'd know there was other was to make better than a single-digit return over the long haul.) But let's assume you don't have that type of vision and have the one rental property.

If let's say you've managed to break even over 20 years in rent, but the house value went down. Are you saying the you were never able to pay down the equity and you take an actual loss over 20 years? In theory, the worst you could do is have a paper loss on the value of the house and a net cash gain. It makes me wonder how a fool and his money got together in the first place. Inherited land/wealth from daddy?

For the sake of giving you a break for being myopic, I haven't even begun to incorporate the ability to levearge tax shields in all of this. I

 

[mstateglfr]

At some point?* I saw a chart a couple of weeks ago that showed migration during covid the last 2 years. Mississippi and Louisiana were the only 2 states in the South that did not gain population big time.

And many in MS will read this and say 'good! we didnt want them anyways!' which is both true and also part of the problem. When your biggest motivation is to not change, the result is people who want change will not be there. Ends up a lot of people enjoy change.

 

[mstateglfr]

Son, i realize you probably live in a cute little "build it and they will come" fantasy land. It's adorable, it really is, and we need people like you, just not making fiscal decisions with our very sparse tax dollars, we have enough idiots spending our money as it is.

I'll try to make this simple, imagine you bought a house in NE Jxn 20 years ago, you paid $200k and have been renting it out for the past several years. In the meantime, the neighborhood/city has continuously degraded. It is getting harder and harder to rent it at a point where it is profitable, plus the house will soon need expensive repairs and upgrades. The house today may only be worth $150k, so do you pump more into, knowing (mostly due to location) it is not a desirable property and you won't ever get enough rent to remain in the black? No, you unload it for what you can get for it. Sometimes it may make sense to spend a little on it to increase the sales price, but you get rid of it as soon as you can. Say you own a similar house in Flowood or Madison (desirable locations), it may make sense to put a lot of money into it.

The cost to improve the parks is a drop in the bucket when compared to the state's budget. The cost to improve that home in Jackson for an individual that happens to own a second home is a significantly higher % of their personal budget.

Stop trying to run parks like for profit institutions. It is OK for some government programs and departments to lose money. Its great when they dont, but that shouldnt be the main motivator.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

Ah. Greenbean tries his best to talk a good game and can be personable when he’s not discussing economic issues.

You’re fairly new here but Greenbean is well known here for being a blowhard proponent of everything must be cut— he’s a Kansas Brownbackian in that regard.

His main problem is that when he tries to make arguments in that direction the facts and data have not been in his direction.

He’s trying to force a philosophy where the data shows it doesn’t fit when what he should really do is to be creative which is exactly what he isn’t— since he’s shortsighted.

 

[Smoked Toag]

If you have never been to Grand Gulf state park it is worth the drive. Since you would close might as well go to Windsor Ruins.

Been planning to go check this out. Is there plenty of walking?

 

[Mr. Cook]

The cost to improve the parks is a drop in the bucket when compared to the state's budget. The cost to improve that home in Jackson for an individual that happens to own a second home is a significantly higher % of their personal budget.

Stop trying to run parks like for profit institutions. It is OK for some government programs and departments to lose money. Its great when they dont, but that shouldnt be the main motivator.

Agree with this. The idea is that they will recoup this money in the form of tax dollars from higher levels of economic activity that are drawn to the areas or state, as a whole.

I'm watching a park that is built right now that is drawing the attraction of various forms of commerce -- including very small start-up companies, restaurants, and retail -- in addition to the real estate enhancements and new construction. The economic impact will likely be a minimum of 100x of what was originally invested

 

[mstateglfr]

Agree with this. The idea is that they will recoup this money in the form of tax dollars from higher levels of economic activity that are drawn to the areas or state, as a whole.

I'm watching a park that is built right now that is drawing the attraction of various forms of commerce -- including very small start-up companies, restaurants, and retail -- in addition to the real estate enhancements and new construction. The economic impact will likely be a minimum of 100x of what was originally invested

Yeah, this thread reminds me of one from a couple months ago about a rail trail in NE MS. There was some chatter over how funding shouldnt be allocated for such a thing and it is just hilarious to me to see such an absurd default position. Sure, some locations could be bad spots to invest rail trail conversion money, but the trail in question seemed like a great one to develop.
- in a state with high obesity and disability, having outdoor recreational options is vital.
- developed outdoor infrastructure helps attract home buyers.
- towns along the trail can plan development to take advantage of the increase in walkers/runners/cyclists by developing trailside bars, restaurants, ice cream shops, antique stores, boutiques, etc. They can also develop connectors to route users into other parts of their town like nearby playgrounds or the town square.
- and most importantly............recreational activity does not need to earn more than $1 for every $1 spent. If it improves quality of life in any number of measurables, then it may be a really good idea.

 

[johnson86-1]

The cost to improve the parks is a drop in the bucket when compared to the state's budget. The cost to improve that home in Jackson for an individual that happens to own a second home is a significantly higher % of their personal budget.

Stop trying to run parks like for profit institutions. It is OK for some government programs and departments to lose money. Its great when they dont, but that shouldnt be the main motivator.

With so much of our budget committed to matching funds and education, every drop int eh bucket matters for us. That said, I agree that parks don't need to make money. But I don't know that we have zero parks that need to be shut down. At the very least, we probably have some parks that aren't they type of parks that people are going to travel to, and I think we should probably limit investment in those and see if the local communities want to take care of a good chunk of the maintenance costs through local appropriations and/or volunteer efforts. If a park isn't something people will travel to, and the local community doesn't want to take responsibility for a good chunk of it, that's probably something that can be let go.

These are the 24 state parks. Certainly there not as spaced out geographically as you'd like, but that doesn't seem like a crazy amount. Alabama has 21. Louisiana has 38. Tennessee has 56. Arkansas has 52. I have no clue how other states invest in their state parks though. I think one of the advantages of privatization is that private companies that did need to make a profit would identify the parks worthy of immediate investment and provide nicer parks in those places. The money they pay could be used to help support parks that aren't viable as far as being self sufficient but that we still want to keep open.

 

[mstateglfr]

With so much of our budget committed to matching funds and education, every drop int eh bucket matters for us. That said, I agree that parks don't need to make money. But I don't know that we have zero parks that need to be shut down. At the very least, we probably have some parks that aren't they type of parks that people are going to travel to, and I think we should probably limit investment in those and see if the local communities want to take care of a good chunk of the maintenance costs through local appropriations and/or volunteer efforts. If a park isn't something people will travel to, and the local community doesn't want to take responsibility for a good chunk of it, that's probably something that can be let go.

Yeah, if there is no local or outside interest, that probably isnt a great place to invest funds. Keeping it public and not investing in infrastructure or updates may be best.
As for the first sentence, if you continually shrink the budget then yeah every drop matters more. Thats just basic math. A question that is met with emotional rejection by many down there(based on what I have read) is- should the budget be expanded more? If honest and level headed discussions cant take place surrounding that question, then there isnt much hope for fully funding everything that a government can/should(depending on how you view it) fund.

 

[greenbean.sixpack]

This is a dubious comparison. You're comparing a governmental agency to a private enterprise (even if it a sole proprietorship). Furthermore, you elected to use a simple payback method, totally ignoring the time value of money or IRR.

For sport, let's use your anology: Unless your a slumlord, you might be netting 10% on the house in the best of all situations. If you got into this game, chances are you'd have multiple houses because you knew it was a long play. (Otherwise, if your were really smart, you'd know there was other was to make better than a single-digit return over the long haul.) But let's assume you don't have that type of vision and have the one rental property.

If let's say you've managed to break even over 20 years in rent, but the house value went down. Are you saying the you were never able to pay down the equity and you take an actual loss over 20 years? In theory, the worst you could do is have a paper loss on the value of the house and a net cash gain. It makes me wonder how a fool and his money got together in the first place. Inherited land/wealth from daddy?

For the sake of giving you a break for being myopic, I haven't even begun to incorporate the ability to levearge tax shields in all of this. I

That was an analogy (not an example of a how to manage private real estate investment holdings), I'm trying to keep this simple for you guys. Prior to making a sizable asset on an asset, there are tons of factors to consider, if you can't draw some conclusions from the analogy and apply to the state park situation, then we're just at a communication breakdown and that's ok.

We can disagree and still be friends.

On a sidebar, the address in your profile, do you own that property? I've always been interested in that building, I own some property off East Lee and I think that area has the potential the be the next growth area. Your thoughts? I don't live in Starkvegas and am not familiar with the dynamics of the town.

 

[The Usual Suspect]

And many in MS will read this and say 'good! we didnt want them anyways!' which is both true and also part of the problem. When your biggest motivation is to not change, the result is people who want change will not be there. Ends up a lot of people enjoy change.

Except the change the people moving wanted was less regulation, crime, and taxes (primarily from the northeast and CA). The states that picked up the most population are mostly as politically conservative as MS, but MS is not giving people a reason to move here (jobs, health care, schools, entertainment, highways). Texas is getting businesses everyday, primarily from CA, because of low taxes and workforce. MS is going to have to get super creative to give businesses taxes that they can’t turn down.