True.
I think the bigger question is why would a Montana resident expect for other states to pay more towards National Parks than their own state?
Bill to charge foreigners more at National Parks
- Thread starter SAJ-99
- Start date
True.
I think the bigger question is why would a Montana resident expect for other states to pay more towards National Parks than their own state?
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 5,065
At the current moment - they (tourists) are over stressing the local infrastructure and our current tax system incentivizes tourists and people traveling to shop here.
Itd be an easier feeling to comprehend if your property tax went up 100% in the last 9 years and the town you live in is a pleasant quiet town on a weekend in early may and dreadful to even park on a weekend in july.
Its a solution, but not the right one imho.
El Jason
Well-known member
Because they have decided they don’t want it.
Yep exactly right. It’s a choice.
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 5,065
Ag lobby. Just guessing.
El Jason
Well-known member
I wasn’t referring to your post, but I see you edited yours afterwards to mirror what I said.
How does any of that translate into other states paying some of Montana’s share of National Park expenses though?
Also- where do all of the people working at these parks typically live? Indiana?
El Jason
Well-known member
I am 100% supportive of a percentage of park entrance fees going to emergency services and such. That said, it shouldn’t be a fix for broke tax structures that folks can’t figure out how to fix.
Fix them, then use the percentage to offset additional impacts.
When we want to Costa Rica we had to pay an exit fee (hostage fee) print to clearing customs. Do the same here.
Fix them, then use the percentage to offset additional impacts.
When we want to Costa Rica we had to pay an exit fee (hostage fee) print to clearing customs. Do the same here.
El Jason
Well-known member
Many of the park employees in the concessions sector are actually private employees working through contract vendors. And yes, many of them are from across the country and some out of country. My mother in law worked in concessions in Yellowstone for almost 30 years.
That’s fair- I should have said “most” instead of “all.”
She did concessions remotely? How does that work? And where do I apply?
Forkyfinder
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2023
- Messages
- 5,065
El Jason
Well-known member
Uuum, no. Where did I say she worked remotely? She lived in the park, in the vendor housing for the season nThat’s fair- I should have said “most” instead of “all.”
She did concessions remotely? How does that work? And where do I apply?
My son worked in mammoth one college summer. He was the only westerner. Lots of J1s with work visas. Lots of interesting employee stories but he had the summer of his college life.
It was implied by you mentioning that employees were from across the country. The only way for that to have been relevant to what I was saying is if they were working remotely.
It sounds like most of these people working at parks live near them, at least while working there. I have to assume to purchase food and other items at some point, thus contributing to the local economy.
Last edited:
That sounds awesome! While not from there, I’m guessing they mostly lived nearby while working at the park?
Park housing next to the Mammoth hotel. Similar to college dorms.
He put on his resume that he caught over 500 trout that summer.
SaskHunter
Well-known member
I'm all for it and wouldn't mind paying extra, and have, to recreate abroad and strongly believe we should charge non-residents of Canada extra when travelling to our parks. I pay taxes year-round, they don't and wreak havoc on the landscape in some of those locations.
SAJ-99
Well-known member
I have little sympathy for Bozeman or Kalispell. They are a couple of the larger cities in the state. They should be able to pay for their own infrastructure. For smaller towns, the resort tax seems to work well.
Resort and local option taxes serve the function of creating a funding source for local transportation to finance a variety of transportation system improvements. They are collected in certain Montana communities with populations under 5,500 who meet specific resort qualifications. The fundamental idea behind resort taxes is to allow places with high numbers of visitors but relatively few residents to manage the wear-and tear on local infrastructure without overburdening local citizens.
Straight Arrow
Well-known member
So true that towns like West Yellowstone have been able to upgrade infrastructure as never before.
The problem with the larger "cities" such as Bozeman and Kalispell is that the newcomers and the tourists have made significant impacts on infrastructure and required services, while providing little to no funding to city, county, or state. As an illustration, new development begins to provide revenue to the county in time, but economic analysis has shown consistently over decades that for many years for every dollar of county revenue contributed the deveopment costs the county a dollar and a half to two dollars in services and infrastructure costs related to the development.
While tourism does provide economic benefits, it does not translate to revenue in any significant amount close to what it costs to city, county, and state. Local residents pay the bill.
The examples cited above clearly show the benefits of the local option tax, so just multiply that need and successful application manyfold for the larger cities and it's realized what benefit that could be in easing the strain for those much larger problems.
Similar threads
