MnGCA

bflentje · Geocacher Joined: 29 May 2006 Posts: 3655

I don't want a political debate here but it seems as if the DNR took a page from the school accounting playbook. Not only will your kids be walking to school because bussing has to be shut down, but they also won't be able to visit some MN state parks. The DNR is claiming in the Strib this morning that budget cuts may force them to close a number of parks.

If comments get out of control, feel free to move this to non-geocaching.

LucidOndine · Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 4:40 pm Post subject:

Government agencies that are cash-strapped do know that the most effective way to get people to complain about a lack of services is to take those services away.

On the other hand, if they don't have the money to keep certain parks open, then they don't have the money. I guess it depends on who you choose to believe.

I think its fair to suggest that you can't have your cake and eat it too. Those vying for smaller governments, less taxes and all the same resources might be overly optimistic. There are areas which you can probably trim waste from, but the natural tendencies for government agencies is to take care of their own, like any other business.

If you look at government efficiency as a function, where the dependent variable is funding and the independent variable is effectiveness at accomplishing their mission statements, the relation is likely not linear. Like any other business, what can be accomplished with an additional employee will not on average be more beneficial than adding the previous one, yet arguably some kind of job still needs to be performed and will require a certain number of people and financial resources to do it.

I don't think its fair for you or I to say how the DNR operates and how it chooses to do business. We are not privy to their financial statements and considerations in full; we are the peanut gallery who has to foot the bill, so we have something at stake.

We'd need to look at all expenditures, payrolls and income in order to suggest they're being greedy or honest. I do know that working for the DNR is not a lucrative endeavor, no matter how you tally tangible benefits. I'd say, unless you can prove to me that they're running a surplus or being paid exorbitantly that they're within their right to close down parks as their wallet is being squeezed.
_________________
The Lucid Network (tm)-- More Bars in More Places!

Boreal Walker · Geocacher Joined: 14 Aug 2008 Posts: 102

I hate to see State Parks close, especially with two in development.

Glad I finished the state park series already.

Arcticabn · Posted: Wed Mar 30, 2011 10:33 pm Post subject:

This is called the Washington Monument Ploy. The US Parks service did this a couple of years ago. The US Parks service when faced with cut stated that the most effective cuts that impacted the least but covered the cost of the cut was to close the WM. The cut was never implemented.
_________________
Airborne All the Way!

bflentje · Geocacher Joined: 29 May 2006 Posts: 3655

I am not suggesting that I have a solution to the state's budget woes but I found the news article comical. Let's target two of the most visited parks in the northern end of the state.. that'll really get people riled up. I could name 10 state parks that if were shut down, no one would notice.

joboo · Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 10:10 am Post subject:

Bart,
I just read the article you mentioned, thanks for the laugh! Lol
I think the state won't have to worry about the operating budget for T. S. this year, the clean up bill will be high enough!!!
It would be a shame to lose any state parks!!

Peace
_________________
Don't be Bitter, Reconsider!!

spinowner · Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 10:17 am Post subject: Re: MN State Park Fear Mongering

bflentje · Geocacher Joined: 29 May 2006 Posts: 3655

spinowner · Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 12:54 pm Post subject: Re: MN State Park Fear Mongering

bflentje · Geocacher Joined: 29 May 2006 Posts: 3655

Arcticabn · Posted: Thu Mar 31, 2011 3:49 pm Post subject:

I don't think that there is one of us that posts here that doesn't agree that we need to pay some level of taxes. But what gets me is the wastefulness of some of what the state spends the money on. And instead of cutting programs that are either not working, or controlling their spending, they just want more.

I just wish I could go to my boss and say, I've taken out more debt so either pay me more, or I'm just going to do less work. Very Happy

_________________
Airborne All the Way!

bflentje · Geocacher Joined: 29 May 2006 Posts: 3655

dornole · Geocacher Joined: 03 Apr 2006 Posts: 353

Wow Lucid that was really . . . lucid. I agree with you.

bflentje · Geocacher Joined: 29 May 2006 Posts: 3655

In response to Lucid, I am not suggesting I know ANYTHING about the DNR budget but I guarantee that cutting state parks is not legitimately the best FIRST option. Nor would I imply anyone working for the DNR is over paid.

Found a study from the University of Idaho. Here's just a snippet. The point is to suggest that the DNR owns a heck of a lot more land than 72 state parks. That land at some level, has to be managed, or, could be released and sold to the public to increase tax base to some degree.