Most places in the US are like that - just show up. Some places are too popular and would be way too crowded, and the situation is pretty dire for the most majestic and famous places around SF.
I did the popular half dome trail in yosemite, jeez ... 10 years ago, and despite the limits it was quite a crowded line, at the cable you hold while climbing up the slope of the dome. My family goes hiking in Shenandoah in Virginia almost every year (probably 15 times in my life) and we don't reserve entry or trails or anything, and there's no lines.
Anyway, it's a kinda funny situation - do you want to promote the outdoors to the general populace? Do you want them to be accessible to all? Well you just can't, the popular places will be absolutely crushed and destroyed and quite dangerous too. There's plenty of un-popular places people could go, but they're not popular ...
They should just make it a raffle instead of first come first served. That’s what all the online drop collectible places do now after a few years of fighting the bot arms race.
not for every park. permits for backpacking in glacier national park, which is one of the most coveted permits in the country, was first come first served this year.
Canada has some national parks that do something like this. Lake O'Hara's booking system this year is a random queue:
> In lieu of a random draw, Parks Canada will be employing a queuing system to help manage the expected high demand. Users may navigate to the reservation service webpage beginning at 7:30 AM. At 8:00 AM all users waiting will be randomly assigned a place in the queue. This is not influenced by how long users have been waiting. Any users arriving to the website after 8:00 am will be placed in the back of the line. When users reach their turn, they will be alerted via an on-screen message. At that point, they have 30 minutes to proceed to the reservation website and make a reservation.
Sony was restricting PS5s by address at one point, but adding an apartment number (to a house) or a 0 to an address got around the limit for the first year.
Depending on how valuable the item is, an incredible amount of manpower will go into defeating bot protections. I made a lot of money after spending a lot of time doing adversarial research and bot development.
I'm going to say that, in this day and age, an online reservation system for very scarce reservations that basically requires sniping to win a slot is a bad system.
Please point it out? All I see is how much goes to the park, with the assumption the rest goes to recreation.gov, but just because the recreation.gov gets it doesn't mean Booz Allen keeps it all.
Article sez the gov't gets to collect $9 on a $10 entry for tickets that are awarded. Booz Allen keeps $10 entry on all tickets that aren't awarded. Apparently the award rate is around 3%.
Booz Allen wouldn't have offered to design and run the whole thing "for free" if it wasn't immensely popular! They and others like them are not called "beltway bandits" for nothing.
BAH keeps all fees not imposed by NPS - that means the actual reservation fee goes to NPS, but all other fees go to BAH. All fees besides the actual reservation fee are not government fees at all, they are imposed only by BAH based on their own policy and analysis, which the contract gives them the right to do with no obligation to share with anyone. The NPS fee is set through an administrative process and does not change very frequently. Everything else is BAH revenue... booking fees, lottery fees, and some upcharges related to popular sites... and it's not at all unusual for those to be more than the actual reservation fee.
On top of that, NPS seems to have been evasive about the situation and has been resistant to releasing supervision data on how much money is actually involved.
This situation has been widely reported on, not only in this article but by Matt Stoler (https://mattstoller.substack.com/p/why-is-booz-allen-renting...) and in the NYT (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/29/travel/nps-recreation-gov...). There has been a class-action lawsuit over it but I don't think it got anywhere, it's not at all clear that there's any legal problem with this situation despite appearing to be a massive grift on the public. Originally, the structure of the contract (where BAH funds the project by imposing their own fees) was hailed as innovative since it meant there was "no taxpayer money" committed.
> Recreation.gov was an investment for Booz Allen, designed collaboratively with participating agencies, but at no cost to the federal government. Instead of a traditional cost structure, the unique contractual agreement is a transaction-based fee model that lets the government and Booz Allen share in risk, reward, results, and impact. This is a true public-private partnership—it uses no government money.
Of course they word this in a slimy, dishonest way. Boggles my mind that immediately after saying "no cost" they describe an "alternative cost structure", completely contradicting itself.
Ok, but the question still stands. The government doesn't pay anything, but it does it get a cut? Usually contracts are written in some way like "vendor will keep first $10M of fees, thereafter sharing 50% of fees"
Oh come on. I don't know enough to have a real opinion on the overall situation, but surely you can see the difference between "no cost" and "no cost to the federal government".
Oh come on. I don't know enough to have a real opinion on the overall situation, but surely you can see the difference between "no cost to the federal government" and "no up-front monetary cost to the federal government".
Yes, instead of revenue going to the government, it's going to Booz. Just because it doesn't go through the government first doesn't mean it's not a cost. This is proven because Booz wouldn't make and run this site if not for this aspect of the relationship.
I get that, but Booz is a government contractor providing this service. Presumably there is some details in the contract that lay out where money collected goes.
Some fees collected go to the Park Service, and some don't. Does Booz keep everything else? What are the contract details with the government?
The issue is that the losers still apparently pay. Take that away and I agree that some variant of this is probably the optimal system given too many people and not enough slots.
Glastonbury Festival does non-transferable by having a long period to register interest and upload a photo of yourself, then if you snag a ticket your photo gets printed on it and checked at the entrance.
Their primary problem was resellers - it's still a scramble when the ticket sale begins.
Good to fight against resellers but bad for normal users - some people might get sick, or have something else come up, and not being able to give a ticket to a friend is a bad experience.
IF the money was going to maintain the park, then "$10 for a chance to get in, or $10,000 to buy your way in" sounds relatively unobjectionable. It's not like the current Congress is likely to raise taxes on the rich.
Compared to how it is now, it would be better, which is a low bar.
But perfect is the enemy of good, so if a price tag $10,000 meant some rich bought their way in and a good chunk of normal people got in anyway, that's effectively a tax on rich people, so I'm for it. (Of course, you'd spin it differently so rich people can pose as doing something for the environment and whatnot.)
Yep. "Special VIP access for Mount Gibbs tier and higher-tier 'Yosemite Club' Members...exclusive events...". The usual classy-looking plaques & such around the park, informing mere mortals of the names of the park's uber-green benefactors.
Side benefit - when Congress is doing its annual budget fight, the National Parks Service can remind certain members that lots of donation-giving wealthy people care a lot about the National Parks.
Of course, lots of private and non-profit organizations have memberships, subscriptions, VIP tickets that let bigger spenders at least cut in line. It seems a bit more distasteful when the government does it though, of course, it happens in all sorts of more subtle ways. Generally speaking, so long as the general public still has reasonable access, it seems mostly harmless so long as the incremental funds go to the organization.
This happens for material things all the time (collectibles, snickers, limited edition of anything) but in case of experiences (concerts, access to trails) the id verification at entry is a good mechanism to defend against it.
Auctions are the standard way to find a price that balances supply and demand.
(Give poor people money, if you think they need the help. No need to decide for them what is best for them by giving them help in the form of tickets. Are you afraid they'll buy booze instead?)
Give poor people money, if you think they need the help. No need to decide for them what is best for them by giving them help in the form of tickets.
Giving them a ticket is equivalent to giving them money, but restricting it be spent on park tickets only. Very condescending and paternalistic, isn't it?
Are you afraid they are going to spend their ticket money on booze?
Not from USA, but my opinion on raffles vs auctions:
Raffle is not giving them money. Raffle is giving them a chance. No matter how much money you give to poor people, rich people will always be able to afford to outbid them.
So sure, giving money to poor people (or better jet, making sure they get decent pay in the first place) is good idea.
And raffle makes sure, prices stay reasonable so that even poor/middle class people can on occasion enjoy the parks.
You do auctions when you want to maximize profit.
You do raffles when you need to rate limit access to a limited resource.
If you allow people to resell tickets they won in a raffle, it's no different from an auction.
(And why would you want to keep poor people from re-selling their tickets? Perhaps they need the x dollars that the ticket is more than the they need the ticket?)
Yes, if you don't have an auction, you just get bots and scrapers, and an auction-like secondary market.
> It'd be the bottom 98%. You're proposing turning certain national/state-owned campsites into luxury experiences.
I don't see how that works. We don't see the top 2% win all auctions on ebay, do we? Nor do we see them buying up all tickets to see Justin Bieber in concert (to bring an example where supply is limited, Mr Bieber can only give so many concerts in his lifetime). Rich people don't even own all houses, either.
There are enough rich people to make the auction price of a ticket at a desirable location $1,000 and we know there is never going to be enough redistribution to prevent that. What you're suggesting would realistically make the activity inaccessible.
$1,000/night is pretty much in the range of relatively primitive camping on private land in primo locations. I've been shocked at the price tag associated with so-called glamping (which isn't quite like pitching a tent but close enough) in locations I don't even think are that primo. Absolutely an auction for Yosemite slots on a summer weekend would be at least in the high three figures.
This is a very top down thinking approach. Yes we should give poor people money. But actually is that the job of parks? Perhaps parks should try to be as equitable as possible to let whoever wants in entry. Then a raffle not an auction is the best way to do it.
If supply exceeds demand, you have to have some form of rationing.
Charging everyone the same fee (set via auction) seems very equitable to me. It's a form of rationing that treats everyone the same.
Raffles are designed to produce inequality. Some get lucky, some don't.
And if you allow people to resell tickets, Raffles essentially turn into an auction anyway. But the profits go as windfall to a lucky few, not to the park.
(Naturally, you could ban poor people from reselling their ticket. On the grounds of 'we know better' than them that they really need their ticket, instead of the thousand dollar they could get for it on the secondary market. They'll probably just spend it on booze! /s)
Naturally, you could ban poor people from reselling their ticket. On the grounds that 'we know better' than them that they really need their ticket, instead of the thousand dollar they could get for it on the secondary market. They'll probably just spend it on booze! /s
You face a lot if opposition, but I fully agree with you. This is basic economic thinking.
Somehow people are fine with having healthcare, education, housing, transportation etc. being driven by market forces, but parks not? In my opinion the state should absolutely cash in on the lucrative public parks. Otherwise you will and up with scalpers and other perversions that will take their cut in pricing the true value of this good.
Giving poor people money in form of UBI or tax breaks is the way to go in distributing all public goods.
> In economics, a public good (also referred to as a social good or collective good)[1] is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous. For such goods, users cannot be barred from accessing or using them for failing to pay for them. Also, use by one person neither prevents access of other people nor does it reduce availability to others.[1] Therefore, the good can be used simultaneously by more than one person.[2] This is in contrast to a common good, such as wild fish stocks in the ocean, which is non-excludable but rivalrous to a certain degree. If too many fish were harvested, the stocks would deplete, limiting the access of fish for others. A public good must be valuable to more than one user, otherwise, the fact that it can be used simultaneously by more than one person would be economically irrelevant.
Public goods (by the orthodox definition) don't need to be auctioned off, and can't be auctioned off: by definition, there's no way to keep the loser of the auction from enjoying the public good anyway.
You are right that most government provided goods, like public parks etc, should be charged for. And that includes roads.
However I wouldn't necessarily make a blanket statement that _all_ government goods should be provided like that. It's just a very strong default, and exceptions need a strong argument to convince me.
For example, some goods are very cheap to provide and very hard to exclude. Or their use has very big positive externalities.
An example that springs to mind are childhood vaccines. They are easy to exclude, but they are cheap to provide and other people benefit from you using them. So I am very sympathetic to an argument that the government should provide standard childhood vaccines for free, and perhaps even pay people to take them.
Thanks for the correction, I was on a bus writing in a hurry with my phone, so no time for a comprehensive thesis. I agree that making a blanket statement like that misses a lot of important cases, real world has too many complications. The example of vaccines is a good one, as it's beneficial to everyone that everyone else takes them.
In principle you could still sell the vaccines and separately give people money for taking them. For cheap, well-established vaccines that would just be more hassle than it's worth.
For eg the first batches of the covid vaccine, it would have made a lot of sense though.
Or just raise the ceiling income tax rate and introduce a wealth tax so there are fewer ultra-rich people skewing the "market price". You could then use the extra tax income to fund public services like housing, transit, medical care and food so the poor have more freely disposable income.
The biggest problem with income tax is that income tax does not distinguish by source of income. There was a proposal in Switzerland to establish a separate capital gains tax with a considerably higher tax rate that targets income from capital (rent, stocks, dividends, etc) though sadly it failed to get enough votes.
The problem with LVT is that most billionaires don't have most of their wealth in land. It's just a specific version of a wealth tax that targets a form of wealth that is no longer the biggest factor in what makes the extremely rich, well, extremely rich. LVT won't turn Bezos or Musk into non-billionaires.
Most countries already tax capital gains at a different rate than other income. For example here in Singapore we have a maximum marginal income tax of 22% and a capital gains tax of 0%. (Dividends are taxed separately.)
What was special about the Swiss proposal?
> The problem with LVT is that most billionaires don't have most of their wealth in land. It's just a specific version of a wealth tax that targets a form of wealth that is no longer the biggest factor in what makes the extremely rich, well, extremely rich. LVT won't turn Bezos or Musk into non-billionaires.
Bezos worked very hard and his company Amazon benefitted many customers, workers and investors. If you have a tax system manages to raise a lot of money to the government with no deadweight losses, then it's an extra bonus if it leaves Bezos to his billions, too. That should encourage other people to emulate him.
Land is still extremely important in the modern economy. You might think eg modern Internet companies don't have much to do with land, but for some reason they still mostly cluster in a few spots around the globe, like Silicon Valley; despite the high rent in those places. They must get some advantage from that land there.
An LVT would allow to drop income taxes and capital taxes to 0%.
The proposal taxed capital gains significantly higher than income from wages. It also had a wider definition of capital gain. The tax was also to only kick in for capital gains income exceeding a certain amount that exempted most median income earners' retirement accounts.
> Bezos worked very hard
You and I have very different views of this then. By this logic the midwive or nurse who delivered Jeff Bezos should deserve more wealth than him because she not only delivered the baby that went on to become the man to do all those things but also delivered many others throughout her career and likely spent long hours working just as hard if not harder. Or if you think considering indirect effects is unfair, literally any sanitation worker probably works harder and benefits people's lives more than Bezos ever did directly. And somehow all of them do their work without needing the existence of billionaires to encourage them because nobody ever became a billionaire by spending their life decluttering sewage systems or delivering babies.
Even if you were able to make the argument that Bezos worked thousands of times harder than the workers that made money for him, I disagree that we should compensate such "harder work" on a near-linear (or even exponential) scale because once spending a thousand dollars or one dollar becomes a rounding error for you, money stops being something you exchange for goods and services and starts being something you use to exert power over a supposedly democratic system.
If you believe in democracy (i.e. political power should be evenly distributed among the people), you either need to abandon capitalism (or more abstractly: the ability to exert political power by using money) or prevent the existence of billionaires (i.e. massive inequality in the distribution of money). If you also care about the climate crisis, the latter seems a no-brainer because without the ability to exert political power all the billionaires' money is good for is wasting resources by trying to figure out how many gold-plated yachts you can stack on top of each other.
> Land is still extremely important in the modern economy.
And yet you can't make an argument for why "modern Internet companies" cluster in a few places with high rent. If you want to fix the entire economy by introducing a land value tax maybe you should first have a solid grasp on why certain land is currently valuable and how an LVT would impact that.
> An LVT would allow to drop income taxes and capital taxes to 0%.
I know that Georgites believe this but you also completely sidestepped my point about LVT in essence being a limited wealth tax. This also presupposes that dropping income and capital taxes to 0% is something we want when the only historical data we have suggest that dropping income taxes and taxing capital gains lower than income from wages has led to a drastic widening of the wealth gap.
The LVT is a tool specifically designed to hurt landlords (and arguably it's not even very good at that as LVT on rented properties just translates to higher rents). It tries to solve "efficient land use". I'm not interested in making the market more efficient. I see market extremism as as much of a threat to humanity as religious extremism.
Then you need to give all the poor people enough money to outbid all the rich people - otherwise no individual poor person can win the auction. Sounds a lot more expensive than letting people self select and assigning tickets based on some method other than money.
> [...] otherwise no individual poor person can win the auction
I don't see how that works. We don't see only rich people win all auctions on ebay, do we? Nor do we see them buying up all tickets to see Justin Bieber in concert (to bring an example where supply is limited, Mr Bieber can only give so many concerts in his lifetime). Rich people don't even own all houses, either. Nor do they eat all the meat.
These tickets are orders of magnitude rarer than houses or even concert tickets. There are ~20,000 tickets to the Wave, total, each year - in 2017 alone there were over 1 million tickets to Justin Bieber concerts. There are over 700 billionaires in the US, and over 5 million millionaires. If only one third of millionaires wants to do these hikes, only once ever, and doesn't want to take anyone else, that's the next 100 years of tickets bought up.
Does this apply to all public goods, or are there limits to this principle?
For example, is it paternalistic to supply clean water via a municipal utility? Do you think that the commonwealth should give poor people enough money to buy clean water in a public market?
> In economics, a public good (also referred to as a social good or collective good)[1] is a good that is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous. For such goods, users cannot be barred from accessing or using them for failing to pay for them. Also, use by one person neither prevents access of other people nor does it reduce availability to others.[1] Therefore, the good can be used simultaneously by more than one person.[2] This is in contrast to a common good, such as wild fish stocks in the ocean, which is non-excludable but rivalrous to a certain degree. If too many fish were harvested, the stocks would deplete, limiting the access of fish for others. A public good must be valuable to more than one user, otherwise, the fact that it can be used simultaneously by more than one person would be economically irrelevant.
How would you even run an auction on a good that's non-excludable? By definition, you can't keep the losers of the auction from using the good.
> For example, is it paternalistic to supply clean water via a municipal utility? Do you think that the commonwealth should give poor people enough money to buy clean water in a public market?
Sounds reasonable.
Most municipal utility (at least in the places I lived in) charge for the water they provide. Usually those charges are very reasonable.
It sounds like a lot of hassle to give poor people a weekly water ration in kind. At the very least, you need to involve the water utility in the bureaucracy that administers welfare. Seems like a lot of hassle.
Just giving poor people money that they can use to pay their utility bills seems much simpler in comparison. And that's eg what they do in Germany (the country where I know the most about how government welfare is run).
At most, you sometimes hear people suggest that the poor need some extra money, if eg electricity or water prices are suddenly higher than before. But I haven't really heard anyone seriously suggest giving poor people a water allowance. Is that common where you live?
There's also aircon at government buildings here where I live, that you can visit for free.
However it would still be a bit silly to say that our government is providing free aircon to poor people.
Technically, they do. But it's such a niche case. Just like people don't typically go and fill up jugs at the public water fountains to flush their toilets at home with.
So you are technically correct, but it doesn't matter.
Yes, if the number of tickets you can buy for the raffle is unlimited, and the number of winners per day is fixed; then the raffle is just a more complicated, less predictable equivalent of an auction.
Auctions are terrible because of the uneven distribution of wealth.
You end up with a situation where the wealthy can do everything and the poor can do nothing.
And then there's the super rich, who could buy out the possibility of anyone else participating, literally turning such places into their private playground for eternity if they so wished.
Like, what price could you price it at where:
1. You could afford to go occassionally
2. Elon Musk couldn't just buy out every single ticket for the next decade to make it their personal playground.
There's simply no feasible solution to that.
Just auctioning everything and letting capitalism take its course just denies a vast segment of society from participating at all for activities where demand outstrips supply.
Supply & Demand only works if supply can be increased, so that as prices rise there's incentive for greater supply.
For things like National Parks or Taylor Swift concerts, price discovery through "supply and demand" does not work because supply can't increase to match supply no matter the price.
Not sure how you come up with point 1 when talking about auctions of a very limited resource. Lets focus on the point 2.
You are vastly overestimating buying power of the richest people. Lets assume that some of them are really irrational and want to buy access to the single place by selling whole their wealth.
X entries per day, 365 day in a year, that is 3650*x tickets to buy out to cover 10 years.
Musk wealth: 171 000 000 000
Divided by 3650 = 46 849 315
If we sell only 50 tickets daily it is less than million of $ that Musk have available for each ticket.
If park increases number of tickets to 500 daily (~21 per hour) then we are talking about 600 million richest people that can try to outbid Musk on a single ticket.
In reality people like Musk probably would never spend even 1/100 of their wealth for any single attraction. If they had, they would not be that rich. Additionally park could easily increase number of tickets if those are not used.
> If we sell only 50 tickets daily it is less than million of $ that Musk have available for each ticket.
Wow, and for anyone else for only a million dollars people can buy an entire day in what was once a free federal location!
Meanwhile, let's look at Yellowstone. Over a decade, they will sell about $110MM in passes (just a 10x of what they generated recently.) Let's say at an auction the passes go for an average of 20x that. So for $2.2 billion, someone can buy exclusive access to a 2.2 million acre federal park for a decade.
A 20x multiple is pretty high too.
> reality people like Musk probably would never spend even 1/100 of their wealth for any single attraction.
Musk spent approximately 20% of his wealth on an internet toy.
Giving them a park ticket is equivalent to giving them the auction price for the ticket but restricting them to use it on park tickets. Very condescending and paternalistic.
> Supply & Demand only works if supply can be increased, so that as prices rise there's incentive for greater supply.
No? Where did you get that idiosyncratic notion from?
Auctions work just fine for eg van Gogh paintings, and they have been in decidedly fixed supply since 1890.
Auctions also work well for things that are in fixed demand. Of course, in that case you have suppliers bid, not buyers.
You can also have a two-sided auction where both suppliers and buyers bid.
> A goal of national parks should be that everyone has the opportunity to visit at least one over their lifetimes.
There are many national parks which do not have any limitations, timed entries, or reservations. There are then also many which do have reservations, but reservations can be pretty easily obtained. There are a few which have limited resources available with massive numbers of people wanting to attend which do have these lottery issues.
Most locations run by the NPS allow people to just show up without restrictions. Everyone already does have the opportunity to visit at least one over their lifetimes.
We are only talking about auctions, because the number of people who can visit certain parks is lower than those parks can admit.
No matter how you shuffle, auction or raffle the tickets, that doesn't increase their supply.
So by your metric, all methods fail?
If the market clearing price for tickets would be so high that poor people couldn't afford to win an auction, then in the alternative that they get lucky and win a raffle, their best course of action would be to sell the ticket on the secondary market and enjoying the money.
Unless, of course, you ban poor people from re-selling their tickets. I mean, they most likely would spend it all on booze, wouldn't they? /s
> Or we're left with needing charity to step in and buy tickets on behalf of the needy.
Give poor people money. They know best what they need.
> Give poor people money, if you want to help them.
Giving poor people money will not help the situation. How much money do you need to give to a family, that would want to have a picnic over the weekend, so that Bill Gates and Elon Musk and others, could not outbid them.
Yeah wont happen in real world. I wont assume bad faith from you, but generally speaking saying just give them money is a huge copout.
> Auctions work just fine for eg van Gogh paintings, and they have been in decidedly fixed supply since 1890.
Glad you brought that up.
Van Goh sold his paintings and owners of such paintings then sell them on auctions etc.
There are people in the art world who would argue that such paintings do belong in Museums, so that public can enjoy them. So they band together and collect money so that their local museum can afford to buy such Van Goh painting.
After such painting are displayed in Museum where anyone can view them, for a fixed price, that generally covers the upkeep.
Which is the same situation as here. there is a public park (that is by definition there to be used by the public), that sells tickets, that should cover the upkeep. But since the demand is too high, it sometimes need to raffle them.
> Giving poor people money will not help the situation. How much money do you need to give to a family, that would want to have a picnic over the weekend, so that Bill Gates and Elon Musk and others, could not outbid them.
And that's why Bill Gates and Elon Musk bid on and win all ebay auctions ever? Whenever a house goes for sale, they snatch it up, too. Don't they? /s
Basically, the same forces that make the paragraph above untrue, would also be at work here.
> Which is the same situation as here. there is a public park (that is by definition there to be used by the public), that sells tickets, that should cover the upkeep. But since the demand is too high, it sometimes need to raffle them.
If demand is so high, then a poor person who wins a ticket in a raffle is better off selling the ticket in the secondary market (to Bill Gates perhaps) and enjoying the money.
Naturally, you can forbid poor people from reselling their ticket to prevent that. We all know they would only use the proceeds for booze, wouldn't they? /s
> Naturally, you can forbid poor people from reselling their ticket to prevent that. We all know they would only use the proceeds for booze, wouldn't they? /s
> proceeds for booze, wouldn't they?
Who tf said that. nobody in this said that. you are the only one in this thread insinuating that people who disagree with your (brilliant /s) thoughts are doing so out of ulterior motives.
And sure in perfect world selling your tickets on secondary market would work.
But in our world, some already well of prick, would develop a scrapping bot, using lots of residential ip's (sometimes obtained in questionable ways), to spoil everything for the rest of us.
> If you auction of the tickets in the first place, you don't have to criminalize the secondary market.
it's the world where people with money get all of the advantages, and people with less get leftovers.
I will agree, that in many cases this is close to reality we live in currently (for instance holiday destinations, private resorts, etc.). But that doesn't mean people can't fight it and occasionally win. And I would think it would be important for public parks (and other institutions) to do so.
Otherwise what is the point of public institutions. Just privatize everything.
So in your envisaged ultra-communist society, where wealth has been distributed enough for the (formerly) poor people to bid on a level playing field against the (formerly, relatively speaking) rich people, now what do you do?
It's not like raffle solves the problem. Instead of bots you can multi accounters/users. The logistics is more complicated but doable if the item is desirable enough.
Grand Canyon’s river lottery doesn’t use recreation.gov and has measures to prevent multi accounters including lifetime bans (which have been enforced) if you apply with multiple accounts in the same lottery.
I was answering to a comment any collectibles. There multi-accounting is rampant and little can be done about it. When it comes to non-physical goods then a lot more can be done about enforcement.
For something physical, specially something run by the government, you can ask people during account creation for some identification like full name + date of birth, not allow duplicate accounts to enter the same raffle, and check the id of the winners when they get there (so you don't have companies creating bots).
What if we tackled the bot arms race differently? Instead of fighting it, embrace it - and fight the market for support services instead. That is, let people script their way if they want to, just make them do it in the open, and treat it as a match-making problem.
The scheme would be as follows. There's N levels on the ladder, with some amount of tickets allocated to each level. Bottom level is for normal people without tech augmentation; most tickets are allocated there, and aggressive bot detection is employed. You can implement a raffle there if it feels more fair. Remaining levels on the ladder are for those who want a chance to get ahead with automation. Apply Elo or whatever chess players or Overwatch uses to make sure people compete at their level of sophistication. This would reward and incentivize individuals learning useful life skills, while making selling the tools less useful.
Of course I can think of 10 reasons why this wouldn't work in practice, but hey, I never heard anyone even considering this idea before, so maybe it can be rescued somehow.
It's getting to the point where areas that are under consideration for becoming National Park land get significant pushback from locals — we don't want to become another Yellowstone, they say!
In the Northeast you do see some spots getting a little crowded but it's absolutely nothing like the tourism-industrial complex that are the big western national parks. Acadia is about as bad as it gets here, but mostly it looks like "theres a lot of folks here." Yellowstone is a mess of badly driven RVs, yahoos ripping around on rented side-by-sides, just a lot of really ugly concentrated MURCA.
Acadia is about all there is in the northeast, in terms of National Parks.
The positive side is that there's a ton of wilderness in the northeast that doesn't suffer from the National Park marketing badge (and thus any draw from the rest of the country), and so are less insane. Even so, some of the state parks within a reasonable trip of NYC (notably Harriman/Bear Mountain) can get a bit crazy.
There is now the Katahdin Woods and Waters National Monument in Maine--although that was (and probably still is) controversial among some locals. It's fairly remote by northeastern standards. It's adjacent to Baxter State Park but the latter significantly limits cars in the popular area of the park.
The issue for locals wasn't so much crowding as I recall but concerns about restrictions to traditional sporting uses of the land. I haven't really followed how all that played out.
Relatively recent. Basically a big land donation from the Burt's Bees co-founder finally helped made it happen. And, yeah, although the National Parks tend to be "better" (i.e. more compelling), the distinction is mostly a political one. (I see they allow hunting in certain areas which also probably helped move it over the finish line.) At least in the vaguely recent past, most properties become National Monuments before they become parks. Acadia was Lafayette National Monument before it became a national park.
I haven't been up there yet. Soon. But like a lot of Maine lands in that general area, it's probably more paddling/fishing oriented than hiking (at least if you're into summits). (Even a lot of Baxter other than Katahdin is like that.)
Acadia is broken up enough that, if you stay away from certain sections of the park loop road and Mt. Cadillac, it's pretty manageable. Though even the western parks are a bit like that. The Yosemite Valley is a mob scene for much of the year. But there are actually pretty large and very nice sections of the park that aren't nearly as bad.
> My family goes hiking in Shenandoah in Virginia almost every year (probably 15 times in my life) and we don't reserve entry or trails or anything, and there's no lines.
I went to look up hikes in Shenandoah since this sounds like it could be part of a nice road trip with my family, and ironically I found that the most popular trailhead requires getting tickets through recreation.gov: https://www.nps.gov/shen/planyourvisit/faqs-oldrag.htm
Old Rag is a fairly unique hike for the area. The upper part of the hike is an exposed rock scramble with good views. The hike, in total, is long enough to be challenging, but not really technical or dangerous. And it's close enough to DC (<2 hours) that weekends were a madhouse, especially during COVID.
The remained of the park, and all the surrounding areas, are first-come, either free or with minimal permit/entrance fees.
Day hiking permits are fairly uncommon on US federal lands in my experience.
Backpacking permits are significantly more common but except for the extreme cases as are mentioned in the article are fairly easy to come by--except maybe at the most extreme times--and are commonly free (except for maybe parking).
Reservations only became required for Old Rag somewhat recently. I think this is a covid thing. I'm really torn, I want people to be happy and healthy outside but covid and social media has made doing this a mad house. Regulating day tickets is a necessity at most places nowadays
The exception that confirms the rule is The Wave, which is located somewhere in the middle of nowhere on the Utah-Arizona border and only accessible via a lengthy hike, but has the distinction of having been the epitome of "instagrammable" already years before Instagram was invented: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wave_(Arizona)
What I meant is that it's not one of the "majestic and famous places around SF", like Yosemite, it's really remote - but due to the strict limitation to only ~64 people per day, it's still the most sought after destination (making the most money for Booz Allen Hamilton).
I did the popular half dome trail in yosemite, jeez ... 10 years ago, and despite the limits it was quite a crowded line, at the cable you hold while climbing up the slope of the dome. My family goes hiking in Shenandoah in Virginia almost every year (probably 15 times in my life) and we don't reserve entry or trails or anything, and there's no lines.
Anyway, it's a kinda funny situation - do you want to promote the outdoors to the general populace? Do you want them to be accessible to all? Well you just can't, the popular places will be absolutely crushed and destroyed and quite dangerous too. There's plenty of un-popular places people could go, but they're not popular ...