Seniors are generous in support of children through our votes and our taxes. So to demonstrate where the county's priorities lie, the Park Authority proposes to take one of the small subsidies from seniors who pay far more in taxes than they get in services and continue to subsidize school-age youngsters to play golf. Seniors pay taxes, do not require new roads, don't attend school and don't play subsidized golf on the weekends, so, "Off with their heads!" This seems a poor way to preserve the social compact within the county.
Obviously, the intent of the new rate schedule is to ration play by cost, to increase income and to reduce wear and tear on the facilities. I won't argue with those goals, but I would point out that an independent study would almost certainly show that virtually all prime tee times on the three courses above and on both Twin Lakes courses are reserved long before play begins.
It is obvious that an economic model that does not result in some open spots indicates a rate schedule that is too low. Therefore, it is clear that the Park Authority is trying to balance its budget on golfers who play during off-peak hours.
The proposed rate increase is based on faulty analysis, is discriminatory and will result in bad public policy. See you at the polls!
William J. Brennan
Annandale
Singling Out Seniors Doesn't Make Sense
This letter is in opposition to the Fairfax County Park Authority's proposal to increase recreation fees for senior citizens. Apparently, the Park Authority is not making enough money and has singled out seniors as a group that should be paying more in recreation fees. No other group is being asked to contribute to the perceived deficit. The purported rationale for this decision is that the senior group is growing faster than any other demographic group.
If the seniors were putting increased demand on the recreational capital needs of the county, there might be some logic to the proposal. But the Park Authority has provided no evidence that this is the case. In fact, the evidence tends to support the opposite view. For example, on the county's golf courses, the facilities are being underutilized during the midweek period. The county currently provides seniors with incentives to play during this period. The seniors have responded, and their demand is keeping those courses in use and providing revenue that the county might not otherwise capture.
Reducing the incentive for seniors, causing less play, might actually produce less total revenue. The present fee structure was designed based on logic and actual use.
But if growth in demographic groups is the new rationale for price increases, then the policy should be applied fairly and equally. Are no other groups growing? Is the youth group growing? Are the non-seniors growing? Equity would require proportional fee increases for all groups. To do otherwise would be rank discrimination.
The Park Authority's plan is not based on any analysis of actual use of its facilities. There are many other issues and possible options that could be examined. For example, there is a sizable number of county residents who have free use of golf courses and other recreational facilities. This includes Park Authority members (and their families?), other county officials and employees, and a vast number of volunteers. How large is this group? Suppose they were asked to pay 50 percent of the standard rate? How much revenue would this produce?
It is clear the Park Authority has glommed onto a single demographic fact, done no analysis, considered no options and formed a conclusion that reeks of discrimination. If the Park Authority is too lazy to do any actual work on this issue, then it should do the obvious -- have a small across-the-board increase in the standard fees, so all groups participate in the production of needed income.
Dick O'Brien
Springfield
