|
|
Post by JS84 on Aug 21, 2024 12:08:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by tampaspicer on Aug 21, 2024 12:18:12 GMT -5
Those additions will bring in more revenue for the parks. I personally don't think it's a bad idea.
Is there information in regards for what they are going to do with the additional revenue?
|
|
|
|
Post by gardawg on Aug 21, 2024 12:25:32 GMT -5
just what's needed ... turning our state parks into amusement parks
Tallahassee greed on the march
|
|
|
|
Post by 6thgen on Aug 21, 2024 12:48:47 GMT -5
I signed it.
|
|
|
|
Post by JS84 on Aug 21, 2024 13:00:35 GMT -5
Move over gopher tortoise, we've got pickleball to play. What a bunch of bullshit
|
|
|
|
Post by tampaspicer on Aug 21, 2024 13:31:31 GMT -5
Move over gopher tortoise, we've got pickleball to play. What a bunch of bullshit Pickleball is fucking up a lot of shit. They are turning the best entertainment venue in St Pete(The Factory) into an indoor pickleball place. |
|
|
|
Post by JS84 on Aug 21, 2024 13:33:22 GMT -5
And with all due respect, who the hell had even heard of it prior to 5 years ago. I'm exaggerating a bit of course but you get my point.
|
|
|
|
Post by johngalt on Aug 21, 2024 13:33:58 GMT -5
What the hell is pickle ball?
|
|
|
|
Post by JS84 on Aug 21, 2024 13:37:29 GMT -5
It's like doubles ping pong, on a full court. They should put in some mini golf while they're at it.
|
|
|
|
Post by misterjr on Aug 21, 2024 13:45:06 GMT -5
I have been and fished at two of those parks, Jonathan Dickinson State Park and Oleta River State Park. It would be a crime against nature to get rid of those parks for any other activity.
F Ron DeSantis.
|
|
|
|
Post by tampaspicer on Aug 21, 2024 13:45:54 GMT -5
What the hell is pickle ball? |
|
|
|
Post by cyclist on Aug 21, 2024 13:49:34 GMT -5
Those additions will bring in more revenue for the parks. I personally don't think it's a bad idea. Is there information in regards for what they are going to do with the additional revenue? Golf courses, 350 bed lodges you have got to be fucking kidding. On conservation land? defuctis way of privatizing public land and putting money in the hands of his buddies. NO WAY - NEVER. |
|
|
|
Post by walkerdog on Aug 21, 2024 13:59:52 GMT -5
Nothing in what was posted said that any of the parks were being gotten rid of. They said the proposal is to add amenities to the existing parks. Each of them already have various amenities that they offer. These would only add to them. Oppose it, if you don’t want to see them added, but don’t oppose them out of ignorance as to what is actually being proposed.
Some people just like to get upset about things, it seems. Mostly due to their lack of understanding on whatever the subject is.
|
|
|
|
Post by nuevowavo on Aug 21, 2024 14:19:40 GMT -5
Two 18 hole and one nine hole golf courses at Jonathan Dickinson State Park.
|
|
|
|
Post by cyclist on Aug 21, 2024 14:21:41 GMT -5
Nothing in what was posted said that any of the parks were being gotten rid of. They said the proposal is to add amenities to the existing parks. Each of them already have various amenities that they offer. These would only add to them. Oppose it, if you don’t want to see them added, but don’t oppose them out of ignorance as to what is actually being proposed. Some people just like to get upset about things, it seems. Mostly due to their lack of understanding on whatever the subject is. The parks in question would require the elimination of viable and intact natural communities, some of which are rare due to previous destruction by developments.
I will refer you to the Park Mission Statement. Clearing natural communities to provide for and 18 hole golf course or a 350 bed lodge are NOT CONSISTENT with "resource based recreation and while preserving, interpreting, and restoring natural and cultural resources.
The mission of the Florida Park Service is to provide resource-based recreation while preserving, interpreting, and restoring natural and cultural resources.
|
|
|
|
Post by OhMy on Aug 21, 2024 14:27:44 GMT -5
Signed.
|
|
|
|
Post by conchydong on Aug 21, 2024 14:33:36 GMT -5
I’m against it. I signed. Golf courses are environmental disasters for the most part. It takes a lot of chemicals to keep them looking pretty.
|
|
|
|
Post by walkerdog on Aug 21, 2024 14:59:58 GMT -5
Nothing in what was posted said that any of the parks were being gotten rid of. They said the proposal is to add amenities to the existing parks. Each of them already have various amenities that they offer. These would only add to them. Oppose it, if you don’t want to see them added, but don’t oppose them out of ignorance as to what is actually being proposed. Some people just like to get upset about things, it seems. Mostly due to their lack of understanding on whatever the subject is. The parks in question would require the elimination of viable and intact natural communities, some of which are rare due to previous destruction by developments.
I will refer you to the Park Mission Statement. Clearing natural communities to provide for and 18 hole golf course or a 350 bed lodge are NOT CONSISTENT with "resource based recreation and while preserving, interpreting, and restoring natural and cultural resources.
The mission of the Florida Park Service is to provide resource-based recreation while preserving, interpreting, and restoring natural and cultural resources.
Can you point me to the amenities of any park that didn’t have an environmental impact? This is nothing new. I don’t personally care to see it happen…… more for monetary reasons though. Oppose it, if you want to. Just don’t do it on the basis of a rediculous argument like the one you’re attempting to use. |
|
|
|
Post by cyclist on Aug 21, 2024 15:30:00 GMT -5
The parks in question would require the elimination of viable and intact natural communities, some of which are rare due to previous destruction by developments.
I will refer you to the Park Mission Statement. Clearing natural communities to provide for and 18 hole golf course or a 350 bed lodge are NOT CONSISTENT with "resource based recreation and while preserving, interpreting, and restoring natural and cultural resources.
The mission of the Florida Park Service is to provide resource-based recreation while preserving, interpreting, and restoring natural and cultural resources.
Can you point me to the amenities of any park that didn’t have an environmental impact? This is nothing new. I don’t personally care to see it happen…… more for monetary reasons though. Oppose it, if you want to. Just don’t do it on the basis of a rediculous argument like the one you’re attempting to use. Are you comparing boardwalks, some rustic cabins, camping areas, nature trails and gazebos with 350 bed lodges, 18 hole golf courses and pickleball? Resource based amenities are part of the mission statement and their impacts are minimal, destroying resources for non resource based recreation is not, its a slap in the face by a moronic governor wanting to privatize the resources that belong to private citizens. |
|
|
|
Post by JS84 on Aug 21, 2024 15:38:17 GMT -5
I read and understood the material quite well Walker. None of the parks are at risk of being completely removed. All of the 9 are at risk of having a portion of the conversed lands developed for one or more of the previously listed items.
|
|
|
|
Post by walkerdog on Aug 21, 2024 16:21:11 GMT -5
Can you point me to the amenities of any park that didn’t have an environmental impact? This is nothing new. I don’t personally care to see it happen…… more for monetary reasons though. Oppose it, if you want to. Just don’t do it on the basis of a rediculous argument like the one you’re attempting to use. Are you comparing boardwalks, some rustic cabins, camping areas, nature trails and gazebos with 350 bed lodges, 18 hole golf courses and pickleball? Resource based amenities are part of the mission statement and their impacts are minimal, destroying resources for non resource based recreation is not, its a slap in the face by a moronic governor wanting to privatize the resources that belong to private citizens. So these amenities are to be sold off? Where in the proposal does it say that? I’ll wait. Do you think there are no other public places with the same amenities? Again. It’s nothing new. And not all public parks have amenities that have a minimal nature based footprint. Again, this is nothing new. Where is your outrage in the other instances where this has already been done? |
|
|
|
Post by cyclist on Aug 21, 2024 16:31:55 GMT -5
Are you comparing boardwalks, some rustic cabins, camping areas, nature trails and gazebos with 350 bed lodges, 18 hole golf courses and pickleball? Resource based amenities are part of the mission statement and their impacts are minimal, destroying resources for non resource based recreation is not, its a slap in the face by a moronic governor wanting to privatize the resources that belong to private citizens. So these amenities are to be sold off? Where in the proposal does it say that? I’ll wait. Do you think there are no other public places with the same amenities? Again. It’s nothing new. And not all public parks have amenities that have a minimal nature based footprint. Again, this is nothing new. Where is your outrage in the other instances where this has already been done? These are not just public parks, they are part of the Florida Park System, one of the best in the US and they were created to do what I posted, their Mission Statements. The "amenities" would be built by the state, using our money, then "rented" to a private company to run, they would be very lucrative confessions paid for by us, and making private companies money. The State Parks are not designed for that. Make us pay for the infrastructure then let let a private company sell us our amenity.
Name one Florida State Park that has had two 18 hole golf courses and a 9 hole course carved out of their natural communities.
|
|
|
|
Post by conchydong on Aug 21, 2024 16:39:04 GMT -5
Can’t believe that I actually agree with Pete on a subject. I know both of us have long time Florida roots but usually we are opposites.
|
|
|
|
Post by walkerdog on Aug 21, 2024 16:40:00 GMT -5
I read and understood the material quite well Walker. None of the parks are at risk of being completely removed. All of the 9 are at risk of having a portion of the conversed lands developed for one or more of the previously listed items. Correct. A portion of the area….. in most cases a fraction of a percent of the total land area….. is being proposed for development. None of them are being privatized either. Thats another failure of some here to even understand what they are saying they are up in arms about. |
|
|
|
Post by walkerdog on Aug 21, 2024 16:44:28 GMT -5
So these amenities are to be sold off? Where in the proposal does it say that? I’ll wait. Do you think there are no other public places with the same amenities? Again. It’s nothing new. And not all public parks have amenities that have a minimal nature based footprint. Again, this is nothing new. Where is your outrage in the other instances where this has already been done? These are not just public parks, they are part of the Florida Park System, one of the best in the US and they were created to do what I posted, their Mission Statements. The "amenities" would be built by the state, using our money, then "rented" to a private company to run, they would be very lucrative confessions paid for by us, and making private companies money. The State Parks are not designed for that. Make us pay for the infrastructure then let let a private company sell us our amenity.
Name one Florida State Park that has had two 18 hole golf courses and a 9 hole course carved out of their natural communities.
I can’t name what you’ve asked me to. But I could name other public properties where concessions are operated by private entities. It’s not a new model. Most often they can do it more efficiently than a public entity can….. so no issues from me on that. My only concern would be public money being used for infrastructure that a private entity could do as well or better on private property so why use public money? Let private enterprise do it, if there is demand a private entity thinks warrants it. We have more important things to do with tax dollars, IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by JS84 on Aug 21, 2024 16:49:54 GMT -5
The problem is these activities they are proposing will inflict far more damage then just the footprint they consume. Think about the activity, parking, trash, coming and going, etc. around a hotel or a golf course. Now drop that into a conservation land. Comparing concessions to a golf course or a hotel is pretty obtuse.
|
|
|
|
Post by ferris1248 on Aug 21, 2024 16:50:53 GMT -5
Nothing in what was posted said that any of the parks were being gotten rid of. They said the proposal is to add amenities to the existing parks. Each of them already have various amenities that they offer. These would only add to them. Oppose it, if you don’t want to see them added, but don’t oppose them out of ignorance as to what is actually being proposed. Some people just like to get upset about things, it seems. Mostly due to their lack of understanding on whatever the subject is. You should look at your past posts. |
|
|
|
Post by cyclist on Aug 21, 2024 17:06:05 GMT -5
I read and understood the material quite well Walker. None of the parks are at risk of being completely removed. All of the 9 are at risk of having a portion of the conversed lands developed for one or more of the previously listed items. Correct. A portion of the area….. in most cases a fraction of a percent of the total land area….. is being proposed for development. None of them are being privatized either. Thats another failure of some here to even understand what they are saying they are up in arms about. Run by a concession company is privatizing.
But the big deal is trashing the mission of State Parks and their conservation ethic.
This will never fly, and has never flown, the right wingers try it every now and then, rick scott the last time.
|
|
|
|
Post by walkerdog on Aug 21, 2024 18:20:42 GMT -5
Nothing in what was posted said that any of the parks were being gotten rid of. They said the proposal is to add amenities to the existing parks. Each of them already have various amenities that they offer. These would only add to them. Oppose it, if you don’t want to see them added, but don’t oppose them out of ignorance as to what is actually being proposed. Some people just like to get upset about things, it seems. Mostly due to their lack of understanding on whatever the subject is. You should look at your past posts. Yes. I’ve noted your outrage before!🤣 You’ve apparently confused my enjoyment of pointing out what I view as stupidity for me being outraged. Nothing here has outraged me even remotely. If you actually knew me, you would know how funny your presumption actually was. |
|
|
|
Post by walkerdog on Aug 21, 2024 18:28:39 GMT -5
Your idea of privatizing and mine are pretty far apart. Not that it matters. There are pros and cons to the approach of using a concessionaire to offer amenities on public lands. It’s flown before and will again, I’m sure. The impact doesn’t bother me, because it’s inconsequential in the big picture.
I just think private companies should find their own land and do it themselves if they think it’s a viable enterprise. The state should be the operator if it’s developed on public land, IMO. I don’t think it should be though, simply as a matter of prioritizing the use of public funds. There are much more important needs.
|
|
