Shame on Boulder! Soon to charge "non residents" for parking starting June 27th
|
Ian Stewart wrote:Here's one more datapoint (keep in mind I'm far from an expert on this, so I'm just going by what I'm reading). According to this, bouldercounty.org/find/libr…, over $12 million is budgeted for parks and open space by Boulder County for 2011. I'm not sure if any of that comes from state contributions, but I'm guessing a large chunk of it would come from the $142 million that Boulder County residents are paying for property tax in the same year. If you divide that $12 million by the ~300,000 residents in Boulder County, it seems each person is paying about $40 in taxes towards this fund this year.What I see is the funding is a mix of sales taxes (obviously some non-resident contribution here), property taxes, and state contributions (lottery). Unfortunately, I can't find the percentage for each funding source, anybody know? |
|
These parking fees are not going to affect the rock climbing areas in Boulder. Eldo already charges for admission, unless you are walking all the way in from Dowdy Draw and go in thru the back of the Bastille, etc. There are no fees to park anywhere in Boulder Canyon, as you are parking for the most part on Colorado Highway Dept. rights of way. |
|
|
|
Ian Stewart wrote:Are people seriously bitching over $5? Do you think it's free to maintain all of this land/trails/parking lots/etc? If you don't pay their taxes, why do you think you should use their resources for free? I've never been, but I won't mind paying the $5 to park when I do go. Especially considering I'll already be paying $10 in gas just to drive in from out of Boulder County. Have you really never traveled outside of your town to experience something different? Just because there's a great hike 5 minutes from me doesn't mean that I don't want to experience other great hikes 60 minutes from me...i think you are completely missing my (hypothetical) point. a lot of non-boulderites criticize boulder's commitment to acquiring open space (a multi-faceted topick of its own, but i digress...). however, there are probably a few of these people who don't mind hiking/climbing/wheatgrassworshipping/etc in boulder. kind of reminds me of the "why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free" analogy. that all being said, i don't personally agree with it. how is that for throwing a U-turn in the middle of traffic? :) |
|
Ian Stewart wrote: ....Perhaps when people visit public land in Denver, it's more likely that they spend more money in the city, which helps offset the tax difference?...The major public attractions in Denver--the Zoo, Botanical Gardens, Art Museum, Museum of Science, and the football stadium--are funded by a 0.2% sales tax collected in Denver, Broomfield, Boulder, Douglas, Arapahoe, Jefferson, Adams, and Arapahoe Counties. |
|
Dave Hurst wrote:For you other users, where ya gonna go that does not charge user/parking fees? RMNP, Eldo, Golden Gate Canyon, yes, Mount Evans all do.All the places you listed above are charging entry fees not parking fees there is a difference, and everyone has to pay those regardless of where they live. Dave Hurst wrote:Brainard has a great big entry fee even for day use. So, quit whining and pay up--or visit a free trailhead. Alternately, buy a house,and register your vehicle, in Boulder County.My point is Boulder needs to charge everyone or no one. As for the Quit whining comment, there are a lot of people who use open space areas because they are free. Believe it or not $25.00 a year is a LOT of money to some people, with that said they probably couldn't afford housing in Boulder so that option would be out. |
|
$25 a year is probably a lot to some people, but is it really that much to the typical folks that are going to park at these trailheads? |
|
PRRose wrote: The major public attractions in Denver--the Zoo, Botanical Gardens, Art Museum, Museum of Science, and the football stadium--are funded by a 0.2% sales tax collected in Denver, Broomfield, Boulder, Douglas, Arapahoe, Jefferson, Adams, and Arapahoe Counties.Huh, that's definitely news to me. Does access to all of those attractions still require an admission fee of some sort? Someday I really need to look into all the different taxes in Colorado... I just moved here about 6 weeks ago, and it seems like the taxes differ quite a bit more than the other areas I've lived: California had local taxes, but they were more or less overshadowed by the 8.25% state sales tax, and Ontario, Canada is 13% across the board now (used to be 7% federal + 8% provincial = 15% back in the day) Perhaps the reason I'm OK with all of these little 'fees' is due to the fact that I've always been used to paying WAY more tax anywhere else I lived, so another $25/year to use open space here is peanuts compared to my other tax savings. |
|
While we are at it I say we reopen the toll road for Boulder Canyon. |
|
I don't think it's unreasonable for Boulder to |
|
slim wrote: i think you are completely missing my (hypothetical) point.That's bumper sticker material |
|
I'd support this more if it actually was going to go to the resources, but when Boulder and OSMP keep buying new cars, iPhones, and rebuilding a trail head 3 times in a row (Dowdy), I don't support it. The only form of mitigation I've seen OSMP do is make trail head parking areas waaaaay bigger, and then also make the trails bigger. Not much in terms of preventing actual trail use erosion or the such. |
|
Wombat wrote: I wish they had something like Washington has, which is an annual pass that gets you in any park in the state. Local or national park.Unfortunately, this is not true in Washington. You can get a National Park Pass for $80 where you can access National Parks and NW Forest Trailheads. Then there's the new $35 'Discovery Pass' for state parks and DFW areas. Not to mention the $40 Snow Park Pass in the winter. And required climbing permits for Rainier, Adams, and St. Helens. |
|
Rick Blair wrote:How do they determine who is a Boulder resident?Stop taking showers, and start chucking frisbee's. |
|
Wade Frank wrote: My point is Boulder needs to charge everyone or no one. As for the Quit whining comment, there are a lot of people who use open space areas because they are free. Believe it or not $25.00 a year is a LOT of money to some people, with that said they probably couldn't afford housing in Boulder so that option would be out.Why? Why should Boulder charge residents and non-residents the same? I pay taxes through property tax/rent that goes into maintaining the open space areas. Furthermore, since Boulder relies on tourism, residents are further hurt by paying much higher sales tax then elsewhere in the state. Sure, when visitors come they pay that tax too, but residents pay it all of the time. Now one could argue that allowing free parking increases tourism and hence increases revenues by more than the $25 they will collect from the reduced number of visitors. But this can be calculated. If tourism revenues drop by more than the revenues generated by charging for parking then they are making a mistake, but I seriously doubt it. Boulder open space offers many things that many people will be willing to pay $5 for or $25 per year. Boulder is not closing off access to non-residents, and although you might think that the fee is high, I don't think it is in any way prohibitive. We pay $7/trip to get in to Eldo. $70 per year. RMNP costs $20 per trip and $65 for a year for all national park access. $25 is not crazy or out of line. I just don't understand the moral outrage. Should residence have to pay as well? That is up to the residents to decide on how to make ends meet. If that choice were made, I hardly think an extra $25 per year would really matter, even to most climbing bums. We are talking about 2 bucks a month! |
|
Julius Beres wrote: Furthermore, since Boulder relies on tourism, residents are further hurt by paying much higher sales tax then elsewhere in the state. Sure, when visitors come they pay that tax too, but residents pay it all of the time.I don't think Boulder County's tax rate is any higher than some of the other Colorado counties, and is probably lower than many mountain communities. But, no matter, I suspect many of the out of county users of those southern trailheads are driving in from Lakewood, Golden, Denver, etc., and then returning home afterwards, and not making a beeline for Pearl St to spend money. Just to mention it again, there are plenty of free places to hike in Boulder and Boulder County, so if you are bothered by the fees, then find yourself another trailhead, and enjoy the day. Did I mention that Jefferson County has plenty of hiking trails and no parking fees? Check 'em out. |
|
Wombat wrote: I personally think it is a good thing to pay for maintenance of the resources we use. .I believe this is taxation without representation. We already pay for public areas in our taxes. The cool areas just aren't getting any trickle down. Steve |
|
Julius Beres wrote: Why? Why should Boulder charge residents and non-residents the same? I pay taxes through property tax/rent that goes into maintaining the open space areas.Because I pay taxes where trails are maintained and Boulder residents are not charged when they use those trails, but then I get charged to use Boulder trails. Furthermore I have no say in how the money is used because I am not a resident and cannot vote on local legislation, I would be surprised if Boulder residents even get an opinion on how the money is used as this isn't a tax on Boulder residents. If Boulder really needs the money for the parks then they need to charge an entry fee. Julius Beres wrote:Furthermore, since Boulder relies on tourism, residents are further hurt by paying much higher sales tax then elsewhere in the state. Sure, when visitors come they pay that tax too, but residents pay it all of the time.I pay Denver tax which is also high, and also relies on tourism. Have you ever looked into how many trail systems Denver tax dollars go to in the front range, that are free to everyone? I bet you would be surprised! Julius Beres wrote:Now one could argue that allowing free parking increases tourism and hence increases revenues by more than the $25 they will collect from the reduced number of visitors. But this can be calculated. If tourism revenues drop by more than the revenues generated by charging for parking then they are making a mistake, but I seriously doubt it.I would be surprised if local businesses dont fight this issue due to the loss in tourism. Julius Beres wrote:Boulder open space offers many things that many people will be willing to pay $5 for or $25 per year.Boulder is not closing off access to non-residents, and although you might think that the fee is high, I don't think it is in any way prohibitive. We pay $7/trip to get in to Eldo. $70 per year. RMNP costs $20 per trip and $65 for a year for all national park access. $25 is not crazy or out of line.You are comparing an entrance fee that everyone pays to a parking fee that only some pay. Very different. Julius Beres wrote:I just don't understand the moral outrage. Should residence have to pay as well? That is up to the residents to decide on how to make ends meet. If that choice were made, I hardly think an extra $25 per year would really matter, even to most climbing bums. We are talking about 2 bucks a month!I know several people that the $25.00 would be an issue but really this debate is based on the principal. Why do Boulder residents get to use open space in other counties free but we all have to pay to use yours? |
|
As a Boulder resident and daily user of OSMP land, I was surveyed about this last year and told the surveyor in no uncertain terms that I am adamantly opposed to this idea. Yes, South Mesa is crowded on the weekends, and people park on the side of the road...and get ticketed for it. People continue to park there. The rangers spend hours going up and down the line of cars writing $15 tickets, when they could be doing far more useful things. |
|
The only problem with this program is they set the price too low. $25 per year is a bargain. It should be double that. |