My Plea to Stop the White House From Closing Privately-Funded, Privately-Operated Parks
Here is my letter to my Congresspersons:
Senator John McCain
Senator Jeff Flake
Representative David Schweikert
Help! Administration Orders Shut Down of Privately-Operated Parks in National Forest
Parks that require no Federal money, and actually pay rent to the Treasury, are being required to close
Sirs:
My company, based in North Phoenix, operates over 100 US Forest Service campgrounds and day use areas under concession contract. Yesterday, as in all past government shutdowns, the Department of Agriculture and US Forest Service confirmed we would stay open during the government shutdown. This makes total sense, since our operations are self-sufficient (we are fully funded by user fees at the gate), we get no federal funds, we employ no government workers on these sites, and we actually pay rent into the Treasury.
However, today, we have been told by senior member of the US Forest Service and Department of Agriculture that people “above the department”, which I presume means the White House, plan to order the Forest Service to needlessly and illegally close all private operations. I can only assume their intention is to artificially increase the cost of the shutdown as some sort of political ploy.
The point of the shutdown is to close non-essential operations that require Federal money and manpower to stay open. So why is the White House closing private operations that require no government money to keep open and actually pay a percentage of their gate revenues back to the Treasury? We are a tenant of the US Forest Service, and a tenant does not have to close his business just because his landlord goes on a vacation.
I urge you to help stop the Administration from lawlessly taking arbitrary and illegal actions to artificially worsen the shutdown by hurting innocent hikers and campers. I am not asking you to restore any funding, because no funding is required to keep these operations open. I am asking that the Administration be required to only close government services that actually require budget resources.
Sincerely,
Warren Meyer
"I know nothing about you" = Correct.
"apart from your willingness to be conveniently imprecise again and again during a discussion."
Considering your continual evasions of every single inconvenient point anyone has brought up, you have no standing to make this accusation.
And you repeatedly refuse to address the issue I brought up. I presume it is because you can't.
You keep saying public versus private, and I haven't a clue what you're talking about.
My reading of the original post tells me the poster's campgrounds operate on publicly-owned land. Is that what you're disputing?
I, on the other hand, am simply asking you to document something you assert as fact.
Whether or not campgrounds operated by private concerns on public parks otherwise closed in 1995 remained open is a knowable fact. You claim to know it, but won't share with me your knowledge.
Why on earth not?
Do you have any idea about the clauses in the concession contract, or do you just know that the govt is is violation? Could there maybe be a clause that says the campground concession is in effect as long as the associated National Park in which it operates is open to the public?
I think you have it backwards, Cardin. The minority portion of the House is holding the economy hostage. The Senate is being blackmailed.
Since the original poster was operating the facilities in question through the last shutdown, I consider him a primary source. Therefore, I consider the burden of proof to be on disproving the primary source. You can choose not to. Not my problem.
As for private vs. public, I've consistently said privately-run. The issue with the shutdown of these privately-run facilities is not the ownership of the land, but rather the ongoing operational costs that can't be funded in a shutdown. In the case of Warren's facilities and Claude Moore farm, the ongoing operating costs paid by the federal government is zero. All costs are borne and all labor provided by the concessionaire.
While it's certainly the government's right as a land lord to do anything within the power of its contract, as a citizen to whom the government is accountable I have every right to question it. My take is that it's a politically-motivated action by the administration, being both inconsistent with previous shutdowns and initial guidance from the Forest Service as per Warren's letter. In addition, it paints the administration in a very bad light to simultaneously decry the harm of closing the national parks while ordering the unnecessary closure of privately-run campgrounds on federal land inflicting more harm.
Through the entire course of this discussion, you've provided nothing that refutes that stance. I can reach no conclusion other than you can't refute it.
Simians! White trash! Nice to see your true "colors" shining through. Fact is Hawk, pokeyblow is articulating his/her views brilliantly, in fact is arguing circles around you without even trying. So, as expected, out come your insults, slurs, stereotypes. "I can't refute what you are saying, the facts that you present, so I will make you subhuman and tell you to leave!" Yawn.
Please tell me the name of the National Park that has no federal employees.
How exactly is he a beneficiary of govt largesse? He rents from them...pays them. I think you would take a different stance if a private entity came in to a building they owned and kicked out all of the people that payed via govt. assistance. I would then ask why?
No one likes a coward. Man up, boy.
He pays rent. How is that welfare? Your kind keeps using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.
So why is it that a democrat senate, house, and presidency could not pass a budget 3 years running?
Nice, but the question still stands. Why do White Trash, like you and your little buddy, feel the need to hang around a Libertarian hide out? Why not your usual haunts? Sorry if you're too thin skinned to only be able to dish out the insults, and not take a few. Democrat garbage usually are such.
Don't you have some barry-cades to erect?
Libertarian hide out? What are you hiding from?
And what insults have I supposedly dished out, Hawk?
I am also thinking by this logic, all roads that go through federal lands, be they county, local, or tribal, need to be closed. Let us see if they are willing to screw the indian with their game. After all, the rangers patrol the roads on federal land as well.
Well, for one, white trash who gay baits, and tries to stir up racial hatred. I'd never seen that here, until your little buddy showed up.
Which again begs the question, why are you here? You've never been here before. Your account is brand new, in fact. Just what set off you feral types, anyway?
You refer to those who don't hold your beliefs as simians and white trash yet I am the one stirring up racial hatred. Thanks for clarifying.
Feral types... Can you formulate a post without an insult?
"Obama administration orders completely unnecessary shutdowns of privately-run facilities." Is that for sure, Quincy? If a concessionaire operates completely inside a federal entity (national park, AFB, USDA office building in Ft Collins CO, etc etc) that gets closed due to the appropriations holdup, is it unreasonable to expect it to close as well? I think the camp ground concessionaire here is operating within a federally managed National Park and thus relies on the government for things like law enforcement, security, other things I am not thinking of. Yes, he is not getting money from the Feds, but he is getting other services from the Park Service that will go away during the shutdown, and therefore can't remain open. I could be wrong!
You have as little intelligence as you do values. In what universe could you provide proof that members of the Tea Party embraced the term "teabagger?" The phrase has been, from the start, a slur used by reprehensible little pieces of shit like yourself. The woman with that sign is at one of the very first protests against the insane agenda of the Obama regime, a protest dubbed a Tea Party by the press. Normal people were unaware of the sexual implications, but they were quickly embraced by the Democratic Army of Hate.
Go ahead. Call a Tea Party sympathizer a "teabagger" to their face. You'll deserve to have your blood spilled.
"yet I am the one stirring up racial hatred."
Now that you've clarified something I suspected, that you are The original piece of white trash known as pokey, back here under a new nick, I'll leave.
Sock puppetry denotes serious mental illness. Get help.
"My take is that it's a politically-motivated action by the administration, being both inconsistent with previous shutdowns..."
Do we know this for a fact, that in the '95 shutdown (Clinton's) concessionaires were allowed to continue operating while the National Parks in which they operate were closed? I don't know the answer. The National Parks did close in '95.
"and initial guidance from the Forest Service as per Warren's letter..."
I guess you nailed it -- guidance from a forest service contact is indeed initial, and may not take into consideration a lot of variables (govt liabilty issues, vandalism, theft of US Govt property, etc)
"In addition, it paints the administration in a very bad light to simultaneously decry the harm of closing the national parks while ordering the unnecessary closure of privately-run campgrounds on federal land inflicting more harm."
I guess I am just asking if it's indeed definitively unnecessary. I can see how I would argue for that position if my livelihood and that of my employees depended on it, but a more objective look at the situation might yield a different opinion.
Look, I don't care what you and your partner do in the privacy of your own home. I don't care if you want to brag about it. But, for mental-health purposes, I recommend you not be so ashamed of your private inclinations. It's not a big deal, and there's nothing new under the sun.
It occurs to me that saying things, holding signs, and so on... without being aware of their implications, sexual or otherwise, is modus operandi for teabaggers.
Regarding my blood, thanks for the warning. Since most teabaggers I see look like the fat Huckabees in my avatar photo, I'm not too worried.
Now, that's done... do you have anything worthwhile to say?
xxx
Seventh-grader, like your facebook page says? Or pedo?
Which are you?
I am a sock puppet, says the dude hiding behind a cartoon avitar and using a fake name!
I strive for accuracy in addressing detestable leftist trolls.
If I ever catch you near my son I'll be the one that stops your heart. So stop looking for him, pervert.
You’re right, I meant to call you vacuous asshat, but that name was already taken (by one of your team members, LarryG, a.k.a top 5 dumbest universal organisms all time – high bar there).
LOL, you think that government would lower prices for outside contractors, because they want to incentivize people to visit?
Wow, you’re dumber than we thought.
Let me ask you a question, imbecile: which contracts should be enforced, and which should be ignored? More succinctly, which contracts should government be allowed to selectively ignore?
While I agree that nonperformance certainly is a hazard when doing business with lawless scumbags like Eric Holder, I think you’ll find that if coyote has a signed contract, he has redress.
Only truculent leftist ignoramuses like you insinuate that imperial government is an excuse for arbitrary and unlawful behavior, then hand waive a non-sequitur about unrelated alternate lines of business.
Eric Holder, is that you?
Yeah, wouldn't want any of those pesky members of the public owners getting in....
Tell me, is you head always this far up your ass?
How come your Disqus ID links to "your son's" facebook page? Seems like you're either the little kid, or you have a double-life, spending time online with little kids. Not healthy. Not surprising, but not healthy.
"Do we know this for a fact, that in the '95 shutdown (Clinton's)
concessionaires were allowed to continue operating while the National
Parks in which they operate were closed? I don't know the answer. The
National Parks did close in '95."
I take Warren (the original poster) to be a valid primary source since he was operating his facilities during the last shutdown. In addition, I provided a link up-thread to an article about Claude Moore farm which also said that facility stayed open during the shutdown. If you disagree with the original post, you're welcome to provide evidence to the contrary if you have any.
In addition, in the Mercury News article pokeyblow linked, it highlights that the Grand Canyon was reopened when state funding was provided. This corroborates that the focus in 1995 was keeping the gates open where possible, not finding any reason to shut them.
"I guess you nailed it -- guidance from a forest service contact is
indeed initial, and may not take into consideration a lot of variables
(govt liabilty issues, vandalism, theft of US Govt property, etc)"
I normally wouldn't rely on initial guidance alone. However, since it aligns to the position taken in the previous shutdown, I can reasonably believe that it is consistent with policy and was changed. I joined the two points with "and" for a reason.
"I guess I am just asking if it's indeed definitively unnecessary. I can
see how I would argue for that position if my livelihood and that of my
employees depended on it, but a more objective look at the situation
might yield a different opinion."
Again, you're welcome to offer evidence and arguments to the contrary. Unless you have proof that Warren's statements about the properties his business manages not requiring funding or employees from the federal government any wrong, I don't think you have an argument here.
In one case, Warren had a dependency on USFS services and did close the facility (quoting from a previous post, https://coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2013/10/still-open-but.html):
"Update: Our most recent guidance: "1. The Forest
Service is allowing concessionaires to continue to operate as long as no
Forest Service personnel is needed to ensure safety." It looks like we
may have to close a few sites that are dependent on USFS operated water
systems, but otherwise most of our locations will be open. I am hoping
to get out a press release and update our web site but things are still
fluid this morning.
Update #2: Definitely still open everywhere but in
one location (Laguna Mountain, CA) where we depend on a USFS-operated
water system that will close."
This leads me to believe he's being very realistic about where he has operational dependencies on services from the USFS. Again, you're welcome to bring evidence to the contrary.
This is what you get when you have petulant, hateful children in charge.
Ridiculous. Democrats have bragged about not negotiating. They've basically said "Our way or the highway" and have been saying that since 2006. Shut it down for the rest of Obama's term before any more stupidity emanates from DC.
Sure it does! Libbyworld is upside down and sideways. When you understand that, you understand it all...
Boehner allowed a vote to keep parts of the government running--Reid turned him down. It would really help the debate if you lefties wouldn't lie every time you open your mouths.
People here really have anger problems. I know it's hard being less successful than you imagine you deserve to be, to have your relatives, your wife (or ex-), her boyfriend, your kids, your neighbors, all laugh at you because of your limited sophistication, your blustering insecurity, your absent self-esteem. I know it's hard.
Not that I don't enjoy you feeling that way; I'm just acknowledging it's difficult for you.
I've said nothing about contracts. If there's a contract in violation, I encourage the original poster to sue. I'm 100% in favor of him having his contract terms enforced.
I happen to feel the same way about honoring union contracts, by the way. Do you?
I'm guessing the contracts signed include contingencies which allow the government to do what it has done, but have no idea for certain. So let him lawyer up!
My point is about they whining hypocrisy. You don't "understand" "ideas" very "well," so I don't think you're going to "grasp" today what eluded you so thoroughly yesterday.
And, please, "imperial government?" Tone down the stupidity, OK? I'm not Mark Levin.
Awwww, hug. :)
Blowpoke since we’re friends now, should I call you Blow, or Poke, or Cocksuckingfreeloader?
[I didn’t know you could simultaneously suck and blow…?]
Anyhoo, wise words from the non-law guy!
I entirely agree with your proposition that the whining and hypocrisy is bilateral; you just missed the other half.
You have failed to answer my contractual question: Which contracts should government ignore?
You don’t understand social foundation underpinnings very well, do you?
I do however also agree with your belief that you’re not Mark Levin.
You’re not even Neil Sedaka.
The government shouldn't ignore any contracts. I'm sure there are obscure exceptions, but as a general principle, a contract is a contract, and should be honored.
I've forgotten the legal term, but there may be actions which can't be forced to happen, but then you sue for remedies.
I think contracts with unions, signed and ratified, should be enforced. How about you?
And, no, we're not friends.
Gee, financehole, I thought you were real.
It’s called contractual performance, dumbass, and when you fail to perform, it’s called breach of contract, irrespective of counterparty.
Too bad Holder et al., selectively enforce that, along with election law, securities law, law law, border law, etc.
All union contracts should be honored, except public sector union contracts which are null and void.
Dickhead.
Oh, sorry, did I insult you again? My bad, it’s just so fucking easy, what with your ignorance….
No, there's another term. But this... you... not worth the trouble of finding it.
It's really sad. So much vituperation, so little capacity to communicate, to engage, to persuade.
I'm glad it's you who lacks basic success skills, basic life skills, because you seem like an inconsequential, nasty person. Sometimes I encounter good people who have a hard time communicating and it makes me feel bad.
In your case, I'm kind of delighted that people laugh at you, that you're just "the teabagger guy," that truly expanding experiences in your career and your life just aren't in the cards.
I like you right here, bullying people on this little blog. You have arrived.
Blowpoke,
“I like you right here, bullying people on this little blog.
“
Hmmm, judging by the rancorous blowback you got from your juvenile provocations while I was out, I would say it is you who were bullying people, tsk tsk.
Since irony and self-awareness isn’t your specialty, we can probably assume productivity was/is also not your forte.
I would also say you fit in with some of the weakest leftists I have destroyed, though there will be many, many more, I’m sure.
Thanks for playing,
Tschuss, lich mich am oash du schwuhle drechs au
Auf wiedersehen, Scheisshund.
Wiederschauen.
The only thing the Dems are insisting on is that the law that was passed 2 years ago be funded.
The government shouldn't ignore any
contracts
Then why is it pursuing force majeure?
Look, dumbfuck, I’m no lawyer either, but you just might be kinda on the edge of a sorta major problem with trying to shut down shit you don’t actually own, k,? Capiche?
Oh, BTW, I’ve copied this entire exchange , so lol nsa, gfy.
Go to hell, leftistbitch.
That's not negotiation- that's hostage taking. Allowing the Republicans (or any party) to use the funding of government as a negotation point is untenable. It'd be like if the Democrats threatened to defund the NSA in order to force the Republicans to compromise. Tactics like these threaten the well being of our nation and can't be rewarded.
And then it gets vetoed... FAIL