Private not for or non profits Managing Public Parks, Good or Bad? (1 Viewer)

UncleDoug

What Does That Mean?
Joined
May 2, 2003
Messages
1,472
Reaction score
723
Age
49
Location
T-town
Offline
I watched an episode of Stossel discussing property rights. One of the subjects was private entities managing public properties, like Bryant Park in New York. Is this a good thing or bad thing in your opinion and why?

http://www.bryantpark.org/
 
Who pays the bills? If they pay all the bills with non-tax payer money then let them run it. If the government runs it, it will lose money.
 
Who pays the bills? If they pay all the bills with non-tax payer money then let them run it. If the government runs it, it will lose money.
All developments and renovations were paid for by the private entity. They organized local businesses and citizens The city still controls permitting.
 
New Orleans' City Park is run by a private, non-profit entity. If it was run by the city or state it would be an unmowed place to dump old tires and dead bodies.

So I'm okay with it. :shrug:
 
private = accountability.


C7034796E768A2E60E79AA_Large.jpg
 
If I understand this correctly, it is a public park being maintained by a private group using private funds. What could be wrong with that?
 
If I understand this correctly, it is a public park being maintained by a private group using private funds. What could be wrong with that?

That is way I started the thread. Yet so far no reply has been in opposition.
 
That is way I started the thread. Yet so far no reply has been in opposition.

I don't think there's a simple answer either way.

It depends on the park and how it's supposed to be managed. Are you saying it should be managed as a "for profit" by a private company? Some parks might have more potential than others to be managed this way. Or is it being managed as part of a public service, the same way that trash pickup might be managed?

There are lots of cases where it's simply a terrible idea. National Parks shouldn't be managed "for profit" because the very nature and intent of the park creates inherent conflicts with for profit ventures. On the other hand, parts of the park management can be outsourced and managed for profit within, and subservient to the public umbrella.

It's a simple question that doesn't have a one-size-fits-all answer.

But just be clear: John Stossel is a stupid c***-bag that consistently omits information or conflicting issues as it's suits his agenda. You question is a fair one that warrants plenty of discussion, but I wouldn't start my discussion with any of the ******** that comes out of Stossels pie-hole.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom