Quote:
Originally Posted by GGG
Now you are moving the goal posts. Your statement was restrict access not dissuade use.
|
6 of one half a dozen of another? Are you seriously going to argue that if someone is dissuaded from attending due to financial reasons(a fee that they can’t afford) then their access hasn’t been restricted compared to when that financial component was not a factor?
Quote:
I agree that a fee will dissuade use. I also think the level of the affect is relatively constant amongst car owners who frequent the parks.
It’s kind of my point if you were pinching every penny you aren’t driving to the parks. The reason it dissuades use is people see a $15 dollar fee and don’t account for the cost of use of gas and vehicles in their calc and think it’s a dramatic increase in cost.
|
The $15 fee contributes a significant increase to the cost of a day trip. If we assume gas for the round trip is anywhere between $15-$30, that additional $15 increases the costs by 50-100%.
Quote:
|
Find me the person who actually is restricted from going and isn’t choosing not to go.
|
If someone makes the “choice” to not go because they can no longer afford to it is effectively restricting their access. You could argue any specific examples I present are anecdotal so I’m not going to bother playing that game. You go ahead and explain how pricing someone out of a service isn’t restricting their access to that service.
What you’re saying is like arguing that if we gave up universal healthcare to implement a pay for service model it wouldn’t restrict access and those who can’t afford it are simply choosing not to seek care, that they couldn’t be consider as having their access restricted even if they can’t afford it.