ADVERTISEMENT

Scott Walker = pro sell-out

torbee

HR King
Gold Member
I'm anxious to see how our resident GOP apologists spin this one.

Aaaaaaaaaaaan GO!


Wisconsin will consider selling naming rights to state parks to help them operate without tax support as proposed under Gov. Scott Walker's biennial budget, Department of Natural Resources Secretary Cathy Stepp told lawmakers Tuesday.
Stepp said partnerships and sponsorship agreements with the private sector would be discussed over the next two years.
The Legislature's Joint Finance Committee heard details of Walker's two-year budget proposal, which would force state parks to subsist on revenue from fees, halt conservation land purchases for 13 years, strip authority from the DNR's citizens policy-making board and cut 66 agency positions.
"So we could see (a) state park brought to you by ATC?" Sen. Jon Erpenbach, D-Middleton, asked Stepp, referring to American Transmission Co.

Read more: http://host.madison.com/news/local/environment/cathy-stepp-tells-panel-dnr-may-sell-naming-rights-to/article_89fd5029-bd35-52dc-8a63-663de00970c2.html#ixzz3TRCbr7Id
 
We are all waiting for you to eat crow on your patently false pro-rape charge. Get back to us after you act like a man.
 
Originally posted by coffhawk:

We are all waiting for you to eat crow on your patently false pro-rape charge. Get back to us after you act like a man.
620-plus page views- by far the most popular thread on HROT.
3dsmile.r191677.gif


giphy.gif
 
One idea out of many to help cover the cost of the parks while balancing a budget. Not unique either. Read the article and it talks about other states already doing this, including high tax, liberal led NY and California. I guess OP would rather have government work through policy in secret (see net neutrality) as opposed to spit balling publicly. I prefer the more open, lay everything on the table approach we see in WI. I want to know how the sausage is being made.
 
Originally posted by torbee:

Originally posted by coffhawk:

We are all waiting for you to eat crow on your patently false pro-rape charge. Get back to us after you act like a man.
620-plus page views- by far the most popular thread on HROT.
3dsmile.r191677.gif


ec
I'm hoping it goes legendary, eventually.
 
Originally posted by 86Hawkeye:
Originally posted by torbee:

Originally posted by coffhawk:

We are all waiting for you to eat crow on your patently false pro-rape charge. Get back to us after you act like a man.
620-plus page views- by far the most popular thread on HROT.
3dsmile.r191677.gif


ec
I'm hoping it goes legendary, eventually.
+1
 
I don't see a problem with selling naming rights and and setting up commercial agreements to help fund parks. I'm not sure we should make it a priority that only profitable parks are allowed to exist however.
 
Originally posted by hawkitd:
Not sure why the OP thinks is bad or a "gotcha" for the GOP.

BAU I guess.
Agree with this. Without knowing more I don't know how Walker can be called a sellout. Isn't this a possible way to get better funding for our parks - and possibly a way to improve them? I guess I have to understand the full context of this before I get worked up and/or buy into a Torbee hit job.
 
Originally posted by Doodads and Hoohah:
I'm surprised a tax break for the sponsoring comapnies in the equivalent amount is not part of the deal.
At the very least it will be an expense for said companies.
 
Originally posted by naturalmwa:
I don't see a problem with selling naming rights and and setting up commercial agreements to help fund parks. I'm not sure we should make it a priority that only profitable parks are allowed to exist however.
It would be odd at first.

Also, I don't think it would be necessary for a corporation to justify the purchase with a positive ROI. Plenty of marketing campaigns don't have a favorable return.

There is a greater pool of private money to give to these parks than the government can provide.

At the end of the day, if you are a true conservationist, does it matter where the dollars and stewardship comes from?
 
So in response to the OP Title.

Scott Walker = Innovator, Visionary, Conservationist, Great American
 
Originally posted by torbee:
I'm anxious to see how our resident GOP apologists spin this one.

Aaaaaaaaaaaan GO!


Wisconsin will consider selling naming rights to state parks to help them operate without tax support as proposed under Gov. Scott Walker's biennial budget, Department of Natural Resources Secretary Cathy Stepp told lawmakers Tuesday.
Stepp said partnerships and sponsorship agreements with the private sector would be discussed over the next two years.
The Legislature's Joint Finance Committee heard details of Walker's two-year budget proposal, which would force state parks to subsist on revenue from fees, halt conservation land purchases for 13 years, strip authority from the DNR's citizens policy-making board and cut 66 agency positions.
"So we could see (a) state park brought to you by ATC?" Sen. Jon Erpenbach, D-Middleton, asked Stepp, referring to American Transmission Co.

Read more: http://host.madison.com/news/local/environment/cathy-stepp-tells-panel-dnr-may-sell-naming-rights-to/article_89fd5029-bd35-52dc-8a63-663de00970c2.html#ixzz3TRCbr7Id
"Scott Walker derangement syndrome " is an ugly disease to have.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
Originally posted by torbee:
I'm anxious to see how our resident GOP apologists spin this one.

Aaaaaaaaaaaan GO!


Wisconsin will consider selling naming rights to state parks to help them operate without tax support as proposed under Gov. Scott Walker's biennial budget, Department of Natural Resources Secretary Cathy Stepp told lawmakers Tuesday.
Stepp said partnerships and sponsorship agreements with the private sector would be discussed over the next two years.
The Legislature's Joint Finance Committee heard details of Walker's two-year budget proposal, which would force state parks to subsist on revenue from fees, halt conservation land purchases for 13 years, strip authority from the DNR's citizens policy-making board and cut 66 agency positions.
"So we could see (a) state park brought to you by ATC?" Sen. Jon Erpenbach, D-Middleton, asked Stepp, referring to American Transmission Co.

Read more: http://host.madison.com/news/local/environment/cathy-stepp-tells-panel-dnr-may-sell-naming-rights-to/article_89fd5029-bd35-52dc-8a63-663de00970c2.html#ixzz3TRCbr7Id
Is he still pro-rape?
 
Originally posted by 22*43*51:
Originally posted by naturalmwa:
I don't see a problem with selling naming rights and and setting up commercial agreements to help fund parks. I'm not sure we should make it a priority that only profitable parks are allowed to exist however.
It would be odd at first.

Also, I don't think it would be necessary for a corporation to justify the purchase with a positive ROI. Plenty of marketing campaigns don't have a favorable return.

There is a greater pool of private money to give to these parks than the government can provide.

At the end of the day, if you are a true conservationist, does it matter where the dollars and stewardship comes from?
I'm with you on that front brother. I was thinking of the part of the story where they talked about user fees being the primary funding mechanism for parks. That bothers me as I fear user fees will make attendance to local parks less likely which will mean it will be easier to kill them off all together and simply sell them down the line. That funding model doesn't properly value their conservation role, it only values their entertainment function. I'm all for corporate funding partnerships, but when you want to take your kids on a picnic, that should be a free field trip IMO. Public lands should be freely accessible to the public by and large.
 
Originally posted by torbee:

Originally posted by 86Hawkeye:
Originally posted by torbee:

Originally posted by coffhawk:

We are all waiting for you to eat crow on your patently false pro-rape charge.  Get back to us after you act like a man. 
620-plus page views- by far the most popular thread on HROT. 
3dsmile.r191677.gif
 

ec
I'm hoping it goes legendary, eventually.
+1
So posting a blatant lie and getting plenty of views is the important thing not the truthfulness of the post? Got you! How very liberal of you.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
Originally posted by aflachawk:
Originally posted by torbee:

Originally posted by 86Hawkeye:
Originally posted by torbee:

Originally posted by coffhawk:

We are all waiting for you to eat crow on your patently false pro-rape charge. Get back to us after you act like a man.Â
620-plus page views- by far the most popular thread on HROT.Â
3dsmile.r191677.gif
Â

ec
I'm hoping it goes legendary, eventually.
+1
So posting a blatant lie and getting plenty of views is the important thing not the truthfulness of the post? Got you! How very liberal of you.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Yes.

And that is how every one of the bomb-throwing political posters on HROT does it.

Just trying to fit in and boost my post-view profile.
 
Originally posted by CarolinaHawkeye:
Originally posted by Doodads and Hoohah:
I'm surprised a tax break for the sponsoring comapnies in the equivalent amount is not part of the deal.
At the very least it will be an expense for said companies.
Say it isn't so, Carolina!You mean Wells Fargo didn't lend their name to the local arena because they thought it would be good for "we the people"? You tellin' me this is a "tax write-off"? Oh, my faith in humanity and big business.
 
ADVERTISEMENT