HikeArizona.COM

Just heard a report on CBS 5 news about the state budget. Apparently the state is planning to sell or lease out several state properties to try and make up the budget shortfall, including the senate/house building, state prisons, and Karchner Caverns State Park! Don't know much else, just saw it on the news (for what its worth) and thought I'd pass it on.

Wonder if it's the actual caverns or just surrounding land?

Some of the Karchner's frequent the Tucson grotto meetings; wonder what their take on this is. I would assume the park as a whole, including cave entrance. There is a California consortium that is busy buying up cave properties, and the NSS itself owns some cave properties. This would be too rich for them I think.

What I don't understand is why can't the state actually make money on Kartchner? I can understand that many state parks do cost more to run than they bring in, but why not run Kartchner at a profit?

Perhaps they can't run enough people through there without damaging it?

Perhaps Janet spent to much $$ on changing the name of a mound of schists instead of real issues?

joe bartels wrote:Perhaps Janet spent to much $$ on changing the name of a mound of schists instead of real issues

.

If this happens it will be an unmitigated disaster for that beautiful cave and all of the life it supports.

Yeah, the whole idea strikes me as poor planning on top of an idealization of private enterprise. I certainly hope someone up at the capitol realizes that our natural and cultural heritage is worth more than the $$ it garners on the open market.

They wouldn't actually be "selling" the park (or state capitol building, etc.) per se. Essentially the state would be putting up the land as collateral for a loan to gain cash in the short term.

The way they do it is "sell" the property to a private entity for cash with a pre-arranged agreement that the private entity will lease the property back to the state over a pre-determined term. Lets say 15 years. So over the next 15 years, the state makes lease payments to the private entity, probably totaling a healthy stack more than the cash received from the "sale". After the 15-years (or whatever term) is up, the lease payments stop and the state once again owns the property.

Its a very low risk investment for the outside entity since the state is unlikely to default on its payments on things like the state capitol, and the state is happy because it gets the cash it needs right now.

The point is that the park would not really be in control of anybody different. The state would still run and manage it, and collect the revenue from visits. The whole thing is nothing more than financial smoke and mirrors. But what else would you expect from government these days?

Perhaps we taxpayers should consider outsourcing our State Government to save some $$$.

The real surprise is that people still expect good ideas to come from our state government. Don't forget that MANY of our state legislators think it's a good idea to have guns in schools because they think it would increase safety. Then why can't we take guns into the Capitol?

JamesLyding wrote:The real surprise is that people still expect good ideas to come from our state government. Don't forget that MANY of our state legislators think it's a good idea to have guns in schools because they think it would increase safety. Then why can't we take guns into the Capitol?

At least someone could make a logical argument for a person with a CCL to carry on a university campus in the post-VT world, but why are they so worried about passing bans on gay marriage and abortion when they can't even get a budget worked out?!! "Welcome to the New Dark Ages..."

Come on, Jeff! We all know that winnowing away abortion rights, banning gay marriage, and allowing guns into bars are FAR more important issues affecting Arizona than passing a budget, responsibly managing our natural resources, or *gasp* worrying about issues that actually matter.