No State Campgrounds

The Sate of Michigan plans to close twenty three state owned campgrounds this coming May. They are mostly in the Upper Peninsula and the the northern Lower Peninsula, yet those details really don't matter. What is matters is whether we ought to have state owned and maintained campgrounds at all.

One reason given is to make camping cheaper and more available to all. Well, if so many people wanted to do that, why are these being closed? Lack of use, really, which is likely complicated by the distance they are from major cities. But it must also serve as a hint that maybe there isn't actually a demand for the campsites at all. If anyone wanted to use them, they would be used. But again, this begs the question of why the State should be in the recreation business.

To help folks get out and enjoy the country? What, with hundreds of others right on top of them? Still, the ultimate question is ignored: should the State be in this business? When we talk about government spending and what and where to cut, recreation seems one of the most logical areas to cut, if not fully eliminate.

Why should the general public pay for what is not generally used by the public? How many Michigan residents actually camp? Even if the number is as high as 1 in 3, which strikes us as high, aren't we still dealing with a special interest?

In the end, having Lansing pay for campgrounds is a little like having Lansing pay for someone's baseball tickets. If you can't afford to go to the ballgame, then you shouldn't go. If you can't afford to camp, then why are you camping? If you can afford to pay for the full costs of camping, then you should. It's as simple as that. Anything else is simply putting pressure on the public coffers for your own benefit. It's exactly these types of middle class quasi-entitlements which break our government budgets. If you care that we spend too much public dough, then this and other areas are where you ought to be seeking spending cuts.