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

[peewee.sixpack]

Both SB's are Band-Aids to the of HB 1231 that Delbert Hosemann killed last year. Hosemann lacks any competence of understanding basing economics and/or wildlife management and conservation. HB 1231 would have created a path to partnering with NGO's that could have brought in-state upwards to $100M in conservation and outdoor recreation funds. Hosemann killed the bill due possibility that public funds maybe invested in private areas. What he fails to realize is that less than 6% of the acreage in MS is publicly owned. Therefor NGO will take their research and conservation dollars where they can get the most bang for their buck (states like GA, MO, TX etc.) which do allow matching funds for private lands. He essentially threw away millions of dollars in matching grant funds and set MS backwards once again in water quality research and enhancement project, wildlife and recreation research and enhancement projects when our some of our states natural resources are in desperate need of help. Look at our states wild turkey populations right now. There is a reason NGO's are throwing their research money into other states. They can conduct research for a study on public and private land combined. Look at our water quality issues, we could have funded all types of projects from sediment reduction, conservation easements that would greatly benefit all Mississippians. The bill could have landed matching funds for our parks also, quite possibly could have had a pilot P3 (public, private partnership) to see how the park would function and if that would be a viable path for other parks to follow. This is just one issue on how much Delbert has set our state back. But our citizens will keep voting for him b/c he has cute commercials and a R in front of his name.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

You mean the 6 percent is publicly owned, correct?

Interesting bit of info regarding Delbert’s lack of expertise when it comes to wildlife management though.

You’d think he’d have a smart guy from State helping him here.

 

[GloryDawg]

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

Yes and a lot of things to see. Also it you the right time of year you can see the Tower from the Nuke Plant. In the summer you can walk right up to the edge of the Mississippi River.

 

[peewee.sixpack]

You mean the 6 percent is publicly owned, correct? Great catch, yes I meant publicly owned.

Interesting bit of info regarding Delbert’s lack of expertise when it comes to wildlife management though.

You’d think he’d have a smart guy from State helping him here.

He would have to pretend to even listen. What is ironic about him killing that bill is his reasoning that it would take away from public lands. Earlier in his career he sure didn't have a problem attempting to convert 6 mile lake into a refuge to benefit he and his friends.

 

[johnson86-1]

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.

We're a poor state with a moderately high tax burden. That's not an attractive combination. Certainly if we kept our taxes at the same level there are government services that could be better if they were provided a little more money, but while there are exceptions, most of our government entities are not run well and some more money wouldn't fix things because it would change the workers or the culture. I'd rather lower the tax burden than keep a 5% income and 7% sales tax and hope that we utilize money better than we have in the past.

 

[Smoked Toag]

Both SB's are Band-Aids to the of HB 1231 that Delbert Hosemann killed last year. Hosemann lacks any competence of understanding basing economics and/or wildlife management and conservation. HB 1231 would have created a path to partnering with NGO's that could have brought in-state upwards to $100M in conservation and outdoor recreation funds. Hosemann killed the bill due possibility that public funds maybe invested in private areas. What he fails to realize is that less than 6% of the acreage in MS is publicly owned. Therefor NGO will take their research and conservation dollars where they can get the most bang for their buck (states like GA, MO, TX etc.) which do allow matching funds for private lands. He essentially threw away millions of dollars in matching grant funds and set MS backwards once again in water quality research and enhancement project, wildlife and recreation research and enhancement projects when our some of our states natural resources are in desperate need of help. Look at our states wild turkey populations right now. There is a reason NGO's are throwing their research money into other states. They can conduct research for a study on public and private land combined. Look at our water quality issues, we could have funded all types of projects from sediment reduction, conservation easements that would greatly benefit all Mississippians. The bill could have landed matching funds for our parks also, quite possibly could have had a pilot P3 (public, private partnership) to see how the park would function and if that would be a viable path for other parks to follow. This is just one issue on how much Delbert has set our state back. But our citizens will keep voting for him b/c he has cute commercials and a R in front of his name.

Whoa, lot to unpack here. Who are some examples of these NGO's? You talking like the Pearl Riverkeeper or something?

 

[archdog]

More so the State Senate.

Last paragraph of that article:



The boldface is my emphasis.

Who the hell would want to privately control our state parks?

 

[Mr. Cook]

We're a poor state with a moderately high tax burden. That's not an attractive combination. Certainly if we kept our taxes at the same level there are government services that could be better if they were provided a little more money, but while there are exceptions, most of our government entities are not run well and some more money wouldn't fix things because it would change the workers or the culture. I'd rather lower the tax burden than keep a 5% income and 7% sales tax and hope that we utilize money better than we have in the past.

No question it's a vicious cycle. The placed that have required the most "investment" (e.g. K-12 education) consistently ranks us 49 to 50 every year. Good luck recruiting business to the state with those stats. Workers are hesitatnt come and the workers we create leave to go where the jobs are

"If you do what you've always done, you get what you've always gotten"....

 

[peewee.sixpack]

Whoa, lot to unpack here. Who are some examples of these NGO's? You talking like the Pearl Riverkeeper or something?

That would be a small state based NGO but they could provide a little impact. You have to look at groups like the Nature Conservancy, DU, Delta Waterfowl, NWTF, Sierra Club, Audubon Society, Forest Stewardship Council, SAF, numerous wetland organizations, etc. There are educational NGO's also. I have seen first hand how these type of groups bring matching funds to the table time and time again. MS fails to take advantages of opportunities that are right in front of us.