by Nuts » Mon 12 Aug, 2019 2:28 pm
Would be nice to see funding increases linked to outcomes, or money allocated to specific projects. I'd be happy for a similar increase to substitute for private infrastructure (we'd actually need the sums done*.. but could likely call that a day). I'd be happy for another 3mil to fund fire management. Another 3mil for progress in waste management. Yet another for walker education and minimal impact.. and so on.. the point being to keep going, the full monty of parks funding from increasing tourism, not just the bare tip of a toenail. As, while ever these things all need attention, the wilderness is being sold too cheaply?
PS. which probably boils down to a lack of trust.. a cost for everything, here a lifetime of distrust built from the lack of consultation and transparency (which probably isn't recent, but was relatively rarely needed)
*first & overarching, we obviously need to see a measurement of wilderness value, before it can be spent.
And, on the other hand, why pensioners only? It's appropriate to give further concessions for low income earners generally and even some designated state sport and rec $, or that earmarked for the health budget, surely this funding could offset the cost for local access (in some creative way)?