As a younger
man, I enjoyed playing golf and tennis.
So, I have no objection to developing places to play the country club
sports. Now, as an older man, I enjoy
hiking and backpacking in places like Pennsylvania's wonderful state parks and
forests. I do object to attempts by
members of the Pennsylvania Legislature to develop some of our parks and
forests into country clubs and similar facilities.
House Bill
2013 would establish a Public-Private State Park Partnership Board to review
and approve contracts with private sector entities for development, financing,
construction and operation of recreation, lodging, and ancillary facilities in
Pennsylvania State Parks. HB 2188 would
mandate that at least four golf courses be carved out of existing state park
land as a tribute to Arnold Palmer.
Why do we
need this legislation? According to
Representative Jim Christiana, prime sponsor of the Arnold Palmer golf course
bill, “The state park system has been stagnant for some time. My bill and the
other legislation are ways to increase utilization of our parks, diversify
users and increase recreation opportunities...” By the way, Mr. Christiana is
reported to be a golfer with a 5.8 handicap.
I'm not sure
which state park system Rep. Christiana is describing, but it is surely not
that of our Keystone State. In 2009,
Pennsylvania’s 117-state park system competed with the best systems in the
country, and was awarded the top honor as the National Gold Medal Award for
Excellence in Park and Recreation Management by the American Academy for Park
and Recreation Administration in partnership with the National Recreation and
Park Association. In 2010, 38 million
visitors visited Pennsylvania State Parks.
A study showed that visitors spent $859 million on their trips,
supporting 12,630 jobs, and providing $397.8 million in labor income. The
spending total includes the impact of businesses selling goods and services
directly to visitors, and industries that sell goods or services to
tourism-related businesses. Does that
sound like a "stagnant" system to you?
Don't get me
wrong. There is nothing wrong with
public private partnerships (P-P-P's).
And, as a western Pennsylvania native, you'll never hear me say anything
bad about the legendary Arnold Palmer.
But why do we need a special board of political appointees to decide which P-P-P's to enter into? We already have an outstanding,
award-winning, staff at the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources
(DCNR) to decide which P-P-P's to enter into and which ones don't make sense
for PA. If the legislature wants to
encourage more P-P-P's, why don't they do something sensible, like putting some
funding in the budget to study P-P-P's.
What's
worse, HB 2188, the Arnold Palmer golf course bill, would circumvent either
DCNR's senior staff or the proposed P-P-P board. The Legislature, in its infinite wisdom,
would mandate that these golf courses be carved out of state park land,
apparently with no cost-benefit analysis or review of the environmental
impact. What's next? Will the Legislature mandate a water park at
Gifford Pinchot State Park, a Disney-like theme park at World's End State Park,
or office buildings at Colton Point State Park, atop the Pennsylvania Grand
Canyon?
I spent my
working life in the private sector, and I consider myself a conservative on
many issues. One of the best
conservative maxims is "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." There is nothing "broke" about
DCNR, though they could use some more funding to keep up our parks and
forests. I have a deal to propose to the
leaders in the Pennsylvania Legislature:
You concentrate your energies on working with Gov. Wolf to pass a budget
on time. But, please let the excellent
senior staff at DCNR work on how to manage our state parks and forests.
