The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.
THE P U BLIC INTEREST, PRIVATE CAPITAL,
AND OUTDOOR RECREATION
By
Hugh D. Galusha, Jr.
President
Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis
A cross the world the newly affluent, the newly leisured, are trooping
in swelling numbers, searching for ways to spend their money and their time.
Higher personal incomes, longer vacations, the tremendous changes in time and
cost of a trip have combined to make this possible.
How their time and money
resources will be spent is of increasing economic and social concern.
On the
economic side, many U. S. cities, counties and states, like a number of d e v e l o p
ing countries around the world, have finally realized there are only so many
places the General Motors of the industrial world can build plants, and are
turning to the tourist to offset their particular balance of payments p r o b
lems -- and an offset of impressive proportions it is indeed to the successful
area, w h e t h e r it be Florida, the Black Hills, Athens, or Kenya.
In the Ninth
Federal Reserve District alone (Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota,
Northern Wisconsin, Upper Peninsula of Michigan), estimates of annual tourist
revenue are in excess of one and one-half billion dollars.
Not overlooked
either is the long-run economic importance of the public familiarity with an
area through tourism that would otherwise remain obscure.
do return, and sometimes to stay.
Satisfied visitors
This applies to new countries as forcefully
as it does to those parts of the U. S. struggling to shift from an agricultural
base to an industrial one.
Accompanying these economic concerns is an equally compelling social
one by governments, public agencies, and churches.
Generally accepted now
is the p roposition that exposure to his own national culture, let alone
different cultures, increases in some degree the quality of life for even
the most insensitive of tourists by an osmotic process he cannot shut off.
The enhancement of this quality is the concern of the church -- and, in a
larger sense, it is inseparable from the desire of churches everywhere to
play an active role in the enrichment of m a n ’s leisure time.
For example,
from the beginning years ago of the originally one-man section of the National
Council of Churches, the "Student Ministry in National Parks," came last year's
multi-faceted "Task Force on Religion and Leisure" of the Council.
In April of
this year a World Conference on "The Spiritual Values of Tourism" was convened
in Rome, jointly sponsored by the Vatican and the Italian Government.
If these
two meetings accomplished less than the more impatient churchmen and laymen
might have wished, the sessions at least were seminal sources of enthusiasm
and concern for a more active involvement of the church in the tourism field.
(If this article wobbles back and forth between "tourists," "visitors,"
"outdoor recreation," and "tourism," it reflects no more than the lack of
agreement among the public and private agencies involved.
The lexicon of the
industry is as confused as the policies.)
Our governments have a social concern because it takes a sense of
identification with a geographic area to make it a viable political entity.
Price of tradition and an awareness of a common heritage instilled with
museums, parks, and related cultural activities can be remarkable h o m o g e n i z e r s .
Our preoccupation with national parks, historic sites, local pageants, has
contributed significantly to our pride of country.
unique.
And our success is not
Witness the e x t r a ordinary melding of Mayan, Spanish, and p o s t
revolution traditions in Mexico, and its political success, in one of the
most advanced - and successful - park and museum programs in the world.
While recognition has come slowly, of immediate political importance
is the escape value recreational areas can provide, if they are relatively
close and accessible to the enormous concentrations of population in and
around megalopolis.
For in these great city complexes, people live in
increasing congestion and discomfort, which is bad in itself, albeit an
inevitability, given the limited economic resources and rate of in-migration.
National awareness in our time of the importance of o u t d o o r recreation
dates from the publication in 1962 of the reports of the Outdoor Recreation
Resources Review Commission, whi c h sharpened the focus and gave a sense of
urgency to the subject.
Not overlooked in these reports was the role of
private capital, which was the subject of Study Report 12, ’
’
Paying for
Recreation F a c i l i t i e s . ” With this report came respectability to an industry
that traditionally had been an illegitimate poor relation in our economy.
Private capital usually has some role to play, w h e t h e r the concern of the
agency involved is economic or social.
Or at least its potential role is a
matter of increasing public inquiry -- and this is true w h e t h e r the area is
one within the U. S. or overseas.
Until the ORRRC studies came along, though,
the inquiries were usually parochial ones within a particular agency.
And
there are no less than twenty-six federal agencies involved in some degree
with outdoor recreation.
The inquiries are not directed solely to encouraging private capital
to public lands, for much of the more desirable land areas are in private hands.
In our own country, for all the tremendous acreages owned by federal and state
governments, the matching of public land and population centers is usually in
inverse proportions.
Those who believe in the social necessity of green areas
reasonably accessible for frequent use by the residents of megalopolis are
starting much too late to capture public lands for the already existing high
density population centers.
Much of the development has to be on private land,
because too often there are no alternatives.
These are round figures only, but
out of the 1904 million acres comprising the continental U. S., 1376 million
acres are in private hands, 186 million acres in national forests and g r a s s
lands, and the balance of 342 million acres is in national parks, wildlife
refuges, Bureau of Land Management lands, state and county parks, and other
public ownership.
An unexpected assist, though, is coming from the USDA and its
Congressionally inspired concern for the economic and social problems of
rural America.
Changes in the structure of American agriculture, wh i c h hardly
need recital, are causing small landowners to look for other land uses.
And
Congress is becoming aware that outdoor recreation facilities m a y help solve
some of their problems.
To those unfamiliar with the enormous range of the activities of the
USDA, zhe involvement of the agency in outdoor recreation as an end in itself
may come as a shock.
But it is an appropriate one for a land use agency.
"Recreation is a product of rural lands and waters, of forests and fields,
just as are crops or livestock.
If these private and public resources are to
4.
be used in ways that will supply America's needs for outdoor recreation, the
USDA must give increased attention and effort toward expanding outdoor
recreation as a major program."
("The U S D A 1s Role in Outdoor Recreation --
A Review of Research Needs.")
In several of the food and agriculture acts of recent years, Congress
has referred in various ways to the importance of "developing and protecting
recreation facilities."
For the most part, the approach has been to open new
channels of financing for the private entrepreneur.
The Farmers Home A d
ministration, the Small Business Administration, the Office of Economic
Opportunity, and the Economic Development A d m i n istration all have credit
programs designed for some part of the outdoor recreation industry.
(For a
longer run-down of available financing channels, a look at "Developing and
Financing Private Outdoor Recreation in the Upper Midwest" might be useful.
Published by the Upper Midwest Research and Development Council, Minneapolis,
Minnesota 55406.)
These efforts to assist in the financing of outdoor r e c r e a
tion facilities on private lands are hardly more than started.
A number of
bills will be before both houses this year to help the private landowner
finance an outdoor recreation facility.
On April 27, 1967, Senator Gaylord
Nelson (Wisconsin) in introducing his proposal to amend the Consolidated
Farmers Home A d ministration Act for this purpose, said:
"The lack of adequate
financing for recreational enterprises is the most serious blocking realization
of the economic development potentials of many rural areas, and of helping to
meet the sky-rocketing need of urban residents for more adequate and more
satisfactory outdoor recreation facilities."
The proposed legislation, either in Congress or talked about, generally
5.
has an announced economic objective of which the statement of purpose of
HR 90 67 , introduced by Congressman Wright Patman,
is illustrative -- "to more
fully and effectively use the human and natural resources of rural A m e r i c a . 11
Implicit, though, is the broad social concern of the U. S. government with
the development of outdoor recreation resources for an urban nation.
MThe
concentration of people in urban centers is resulting in acute national
problems of overcrowding.
of these national problems.
The countryside can contribute to the alleviation
Among other required actions.a vigorous program
of outdoor recreation development on rural lands is called f o r . 11
(U. S.
Secretary of Agriculture Orville L. Freeman, April 27, 1967.)
Both direct loans and participation loans are being considered.
To
encourage the provider of equity capital, and to furnish an additional assist
to the entrepreneur who has to borrow money, an increased investment credit,
and a rapid amortization program are also being talked about.
What success these proposals presently under discussion will have in
the existing legislative climate is certainly speculative.
But there can be
little doubt of the increasing pressure for some type of program, and the
eventual passage of a measure expanding assistance to the private owner in
financing o u tdoor recreation facilities.
The yearning for new industrial
payrolls still moves many state and local chambers of commerce.
But there
are signs the tourist is beginning to be recognized as a boost to local
economies - - a boost happily free of many of the accompanying pressures -on utility and school systems, to mention just two -- and a lot easier to
cultivate.
Unanswered so far are the human ecological problems changing land use
6.
can create.
The relationship of our recreational land use to another; the
preservation of ’
’
recreation and aesthetic values including historical and
archaeological v a l u e s ”; building and operating quality codes (non-existent or
obsolete in many rural counties); impact on the biological environment;
patterns for coordination of recreation development on a m u l t i -county or
even regional basis; provision for public utility services from garbage to
electricity -- the list is horrendous.
Many of these will require modification
in local or state i n f r a - s t r u c t u r e s , and will hardly come easily.
For remember,
we are dealing with private land holdings.
With a long and distinguished record of assistance to the private
sector through the research facilities of land grant colleges, and the county
agent information system, the USDA is probably the logical agency to start
this exploration of the collateral problems of recreation developments on
private land, of which the financing of private facilities is only one facet
an exceedingly important one, but only a part of the total solution.
In fact,
it can be argued that to provide easier public financing for new facilities
before patterns of solution have been developed for the other problems, might
result in massive headaches for the next generation confronted with a whole
series of rural recreation slums.
And how about private capital on public lands?
quite as squarely joined.
Here the issue is not
Many of these areas, because of their location,
have less population pressure and only limited possibilities of intensive
day use.
Further, they frequently have special scenic or historical values,
each with its own band of passionate and articulate supporters who see any
private - or public, for that m a tter - investment in facilities as an intrusion
on the basic values of the area.
These groups, sometimes lumped disrespectfully
7.
together by their critics as those "birds and bees people," have been the
bulwark of American c o n s e r v a t i o n , and the terror of the legislator bent on
economic development at any price.
What few excesses they may have committed,
when viewed particularly from the point of anguish of a frustrated local
economic development group, are way offset by the preservation of the national
public interest.
But sometimes the dialog among the various groups does
become what Laurens Vander Post refers to as the dialog of the deaf.
To narrow this inquiry, let us assume the decision has been made that
certain basic support services on the public land will enhance the tourist's
enjoyment of the area.
Food and housing facilities, camping supplies, and
automobile services are relatively n o n c o n t r o v e r s i a l , per s e , if any services
at all are to be provided.
Curios and souvenirs may be regarded of lower
priority by some, as are such area-related specialized recreational services
as boots, saddle horses, funiculars, and ski tows.
But let us assume that by
some presently non-existent yardstick, some of these services may also be
required.
"Non-existent" is used advisedly.
Appropriateness of these
services is an ad hoc decision based on geographic location, regional desires
and tastes, overall financial requirements of the operators -- even occasionally
criteria of optimum land use.
If the public interest is involved, why such a fuss about private
capital?
Why not have direct investment and operation by public agencies?
To some who have been exasperated by the frequent points of abrasion almost
always present wh e n public interest and the e n trepreneur get tangled up t o
gether, this may at times seem a solution.
for some areas.
And a final solution it may be
But certainly not where private lands are involved and either
the owner does not wish to sell or condemnation is not possible.
Even on public
lands there is a general feeling that private investment and operation is
preferable.
The Bureau of the Budget has stated:
"The types of facilities
and services involved are typically provided by private enterprise in our
economy, and it would be contrary to general Federal policy to have the
Federal Government directly engage in such operations when private enterprise
is willi ng to do so on reasonable ter m s . 11
("Study of Concessions on Federal
Lands Available for Public Recreation," p. 30.
Underlining supplied in the
original t e x t .)
Four reasons are advanced by the Bureau for private operations:
"(1) The Government has been relieved of the need to
appropriate at least $260 to $290 million of Federal funds
for equivalent facilities and it may be relieved of the need
to provide funds for the estimated $350 million worth of
similar facilities w h i c h it is estimated will be required in
the next ten years; (2) the Government receives payments from
concessioners in the form of income taxes each year; (3) the
Government receives approximately $2,400,000 each year in fees
and payments from concessioners as a result of contract a r r a n g e
ments; and (4) the Government is relieved of an enormous
responsibility for operations suitable for private enterprise."
Statutory authority for private operation is to be found in the acts
affecting various agencies.
Given the preference, why all the fuss?
First
off, the size of the future investment required to meet public demands for
just four of the federal agencies involved - and there are others - is
estimated at nearly $400,000,000, or about $150,000,000 more than the present
value of the private investment administered by these same agencies.
To this
would have to be added probably a multiple to pick up requirements of state
agencies and the proposed program envisioned by the Department of Agriculture
for assistance on private rural lands.
These are huge numbers, and would
merit a close look for that reason alone.
9.
Still, if the opportunity is all that great, why not let normal market
forces supply the funds?
Well, it isn't all that great.
outdoor recreation entrepreneur has not been that good.
The history of the
Perhaps the best
numbers are those compiled by the National Park Service from its c o n c e s s i o n e r s ’
operations, for this is not an industry with a statistical base generally.
Seventy percent of the concessions reporting to federal agencies had less than
$50,000 in total assets -- and with a m i n imum investment per motel room of
$5,000 generally used as a rule of thumb, this i s n ‘t much of a platform to
start from.
Admittedly, some of these do not involve rooming facilities, but
other tourist services are now in scale, w h e t h e r they be stools in a coffee
shop, or a ski tow.
Twenty percent of the NPS concessioners lost money in 1964,
which was an excellent domestic travel year, with averages for the group of
about 4 . 4 % earned on sales, and about 2% on present value.
This does not mean there are no successful operators, but these are in
areas with high levels of v i sitation where size and experience have enabled
a few to build a capital base, and more importantly, management teams of proven
quality.
With these prime ingredients, they have been able to tap regional or
national capital markets for their requirements.
In the main, though, the average venturer into outdoor recreation has
little going for him.
In most parts of the U. S . , the capital resources
available to him are not only meagre, but he has to combat an industry history
that generally has prejudiced the local bank against it.
As Senator Nelson
said, “Most recreational industry potentials are located in rural areas, where
banks are usually small and other sources of credit no n - e x i s t e n t . 11
With a poor
history, the statutory limitations on loan limits and real estate, and o ther
more profitable and conventional places to put his depositors' money, the
banker is hardly to be blamed.
'’
Conventional" is a key word.
The would-be concessioner on public land
has an almost impossible financing problem, because of the unwillingness of
most investors or institutional lenders to expose themselves to the unfamiliar
and often nominally repugnant provisions in most land use contracts.
Then, too, the concessioner must be knowledgeable about the business.
There is a critical shortage of entrepreneural talent in the whole outdoor
recreation industry.
E n thusiasm and lack of alternative land uses are never
substitutes for feasibility studies and financial analyses which demonstrate
a reasonable possibility of investment return and repayment capacity.
The function of private investment is to make a profit, for this is
the fuel of the engine.
An accepted truism in most contexts, but when private
investment and public lands or credit get mixed up together in outdoor r e c r e a
tion, the questions of ho w much, how soon, and from what services, can become
sticky indeed.
Even if the objective is solely economic development of a d e
pressed rural area, success of the entrepreneur cannot be separated from the
success of the whole program.
This success can expose public administrators
and entrepreneurs alike to charges of give-aways and discrimination.
But it is in the area of private development on public land that the
dialectics become most heated.
The search for a viable policy w i thin which
concessioners can construct and operate visitor services in federal areas
involves a continuous process of reconciliation of objectives that, at times,
seem quite incompatible.
These objectives are polarized around two basic
motivations.
One is the concessioner's desire for a return on his investment;
a return at least as attractive as that he can reasonably expect from the
alternative places to put his money.
The other is the public administrator's
desire to meet broad social targets, either directly related to the special
historical or scenic factors of the specific area as part of the national
culture, or as part of an economic development design for the area.
A few examples of how these operate will illustrate the point.
(a)
Location -- The concessioner wants his facility as close to the
visitor attraction as possible, arguing that ease and convenience of use are
public requirements.
The public administrator prefers to have it w h olly
subordinate to the objective of the visitation -- i.e., the scenic w o nder
or the historic site -- arguing that no m a t t e r how tastefully executed, the
tourist facility is an intrusive influence.
(b)
Scope of investment -- The concessioner, usually faced with sub
stantially higher construction costs because of the special environmental
conditions where these areas are located, places a low order of priority on
non-revenue space or purely aesthetic objectives.
Confronted with the broad
social requirements of interpretation of the area, good taste, and a c o n f l i c t
ing array of building codes, the public a d m i n istrator sometimes starts from a
point of no return -- in either the negotiation or investment sense.
Just one
of these -- good taste -- is a subject when applied to facilities in public
areas can produce the heat and predictability of eruption of Old Faithful
Geyser.
(c)
Rate structure -- Operating cost structures, the desire to maximize
profits, the construction cost/revenue rate ratio, are at frequent odds with
the public's objective of a service and a rate for everyone.
(d)
Monopoly vs. competition -- Because of the necessity of close
control of the operator by the public administrator, and the nature of the
areas usually involved, the monopoly or exclusive operating franchise is
usually preferred.
This has both political - or public - implications, as
well as practical - or operating - ones.
As a substitute for the role of
competition in maintaining price and service relationships, the public a d
ministrator has to intervene in the concessioner's operation, frequently to
their mutual irritation and frustration.
(e)
Ownership -- Public interest and national significance are usuall
paramount in the creation of the special status of the area.
This usually
means retention of government ownership of the fee title and limitations on
transferability.
Yet to secure external financing, whether from creditor or
equity sources, the entrepreneur has to own something representing the invest
men:.
Public interest requires a limited term and a m e chanism for prompt
termination of the operation; private interest requires an orderly process
of settlement and an assurance of value return.
The list of matters to be dealt with could be continued, but these are
representative.
Designing an appropriate public policy for all agencies to
deal with these problems is now a matter of presidential concern.
An attempt
has been made by Congress to legislate a policy of sorts for one agency, at
least, the National Park Service.
It is far from ideal.
In its defense, it
must be remembered that this legislation is substantially the framework a d
m i n i s tratively determined years ago, rather than a de novo approach to the
problem.
The agency, in turn, has worked out over the years a modus vivendi
with individual concessioners in its areas on an ad hoc basis tailored to the
political and business realities of the particular situation -- which, even
though a strict critic might argue has done violence to the "pol i c y ”, n e v e r
theless has made private investment possible.
This does not pretend to be a comprehensive list of the elements of a
viable policy, but it includes most of the obvious assumptions:
1)
The public interest in these areas is paramount.
Only goods and
services essential to the vis i t o r while in the area should be provided.
Curios, food, lodging, general merchandise, transportation, and automobile
support services may or may not be necessary, but they are never ends in
themselves.
2)
The quantity of v i s itor services is subordinate to the national
objectives of the area.
They should be furnished on a regulated basis to
assure quality as well as appropriate quantity limits.
This means a limited,
usually exclusive, operating privilege precisely similar to any other public
utility.
3)
Services which fall into the rough classification of v i s i t o r support
can best be provided by the private sector.
effective spur to a concessioner.
The expectation of a profit is an
Though it may offend those political
taxonomists who would have a well ordered and compartmented world, there is
a net public good in the tension between the public and private sectors of
concession operation.
It keeps each side on its toes.
14.
4)
To attract private investment, stability of the operating environ
ment is a necessity.
The concessioner, and more particularly his backers,
want assurance the ground rules understood at the outset preferably will be
left unchanged during the life of the investment -- or if change is required,
the change will not be unilaterally imposed.
5)
This is the sine qua non.
There must be a mechanism for settlement of disputes.
Starting
with the assumption that the public interest is paramount, the final operating
decision must be the public administrator’s, but the concessioner must have a
means assured him to get out with a minimum of hardship if he does not agree.
In the public interest this transfer must be quickly accomplished to avoid
disruption of service.
In practice, this probably requires that either
(a) the government buys the property interest on an agreed upon formula,
which disposes of the dissident concessioner as a preliminary to the securing
of a new one; or (b) the old concessioner continues with his original contract
under the new conditions, or with a satisfactory hold-harmless provision, until
a successor concessioner can be found.
6)
essential.
A careful definition of the property rights of the concessioner is
One such definition is the ‘
‘
possessory interest11 of a national park
concessioner.
The principal criticism of this is its novelty.
Bankers and
institutional lenders confronted with the term for the first time are per
sonally intrigued and professionally restrained.
Terms that have to be
explained by lawyers for the borrower to a loan officer present a whole host
of problems to him in his explanations to loan committees; problems he would
just as soon do without.
of definition.
Some form of guaranty can do much to ease the problem
If the take-out in the event of a failure is at least as prompt
as that specified in the U. S. Maritime Act, let us say, then the institutional
lender does not have to concern himself with the definition of the property
right of the borrower.
7)
If the venture as programmed does not meet the tests of a profitable
investment, the project should be reexamined for its public purpose.
If the
public interest requires such a facility at that location, and the rate
structure existing in the general area does not permit an increase to a level
which will return a profit, then the public administrator has two choices:
he can build the entire facility and lease it to a concessioner, or he can
build all of the public space and so much of the balance as might be necessary
to bring the project into economic balance.
Preferably the government, if it
builds at all in the private sector, should build an entire function, rather
than have one split -- for example, all of the food facilities, or all of the
housing facilities.
Another possibility which has not been mentioned as an
alternative would be to permit the concessioner to go ahead in the face of an
assured uneconomic venture, and hope for the best.
However*,* balanced against
the dubious advantage of having the facility built on any basis is the certain
political repercussion of a major failure in a publicly administered area.
Additional credit resources are not the answer in these cases, for unless the
concessioner can have a reasonable expectation of profitability with equity
money, the obligation to repay a loan hardly adds anything, except grease on
the skids of insolvency.
8)
Rates should be determined by those charged for comparable facilities
in the area.
They cannot be fixed by reference to costs plus a reasonable profit,
because this limits the public interest in construction and location.
16.
It is
these latter factors that cause a disproportionate imbalance in construction
and operating costs.
The approach to maintain a satisfactory rate structure
should be through construction and operating assistance.
Through franchise
fees, audit procedure, and regulation generally, the investment return to the
operator can be maintained within reasonable limits.
Franchise fees should
not be viewed as a government revenue objective, and should be geared to risk,
investment, and profitability.
9)
The term of the contract should be established by reference to
the scope of the investment and the nature of the professional expertise
required.
For example, a substantial investment in buildings and permanent
equipment requires a longer period of time for amortization than one primarily
in current assets, such as inventory.
Less recognized often, but just as
important, is the knowledge and skill of a particular management team put to
gether for the purposes of the development.
However, it is nearly always
necessary to settle for terms less than the lives of the major properties.
There are two ways of handling this:
give the existing concessioner a
preferential right to a renewal of his contract on terms equivalent to those
offered by the highest bidder; or provide for a determinable option price for
the equity of the concessioner at the expiration of the contract, so that all
bidders start on the same basis.
10)
The valuation of the concessioner1s investment for purposes of
termination, cancellation, retirement, or any other circumstance, should be
on the basis of appraisal.
The objective should be to place the investor in
the same position he would have been in if he had made an alternative invest
ment somewhere else, which means simply he would be taking his chances on the
condition of the economy, price levels, and the economic usefulness of his
properties, when the time came to dispose of his investment.
At what point are we now?
The President has requested (April 21, 1967)
neach department and agency granting recreation concession contracts to review
their present policies, organization, and procedures with respect to concession
activities . . . and report through the P r e s i d e n t s Council on Recreation and
Natural Beauty and the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, within six months
on the progress . .
This directive emphasizes the importance of a coordinated approach urged
in the earlier referred to report of the Bureau of the Budget.
"A central
policy level focus is necessary if Federal agency policies related to con
cessioner contracts are to remain in harmony, and the President's Council on
Recreation and Natural Beauty, with the support of the Bureau of Outdoor
Recreation, is the appropriate focal point for such efforts.11
Although not specifically covered in the President's directive nor in
the Bureau of the Budget report, the financing of recreation facilities on
private land as part of rural lands development should certainly be included.
As mentioned, legislation is already being proposed to cover this gap, and
should be brought within the purview of the same review process.
Unfortunately
no room has been provided yet for formal participation in the discussions by
representatives of the private industry proposed to be helped.
This is an
industry which is specialized and complex in its business parameters.
It would
seem quite elemental not only to solicit views from within the industry and its
related private service components, but to deeply involve them in the process
before programs are frozen in federal legislation or overall government
policies.
To summarize then:
1 - Public interest and private capital can be and should be joined
in outdoor recreation.
2 - Federal agencies should be forced to coordinate their policies
through an appropriate central agency, and the proliferation of ad hoc piece
meal programs stopped.
3 - Flexibility in the programs will be a necessity.
extension is not the whole answer for every area.
Direct credit
Secondary credit through
guaranty programs and capital assistance by direct public construction and
ownership will have their places.
The kind and amount of assistance must be
fitted to the operator1s requirements.
But if a direct loan program is
included in the total approach, as it should be, keep it within existing
agencies like the Farmers Home Administration or the Small Business Administra
tion, where a certain talent and experience has been accumulated.
4 - There is no reason to forget the usual financing imperatives simply
because it is a good cause.
Competent management of these developing areas is
in as short supply as capital -- and cannot be as easily increased.
5 - The kind of equity granted to the concessioner; a clear definition
of the roles of the parties; devices for the settlement of differences; an
equitable schedule of franchise fees; terms of loans and franchises; a
competitive pattern for operating franchises at least at the outset; these
are the principal points of uncertainty in the murky area between agencies and
concessioners, which must be clearly and simply stated if the institutional
lender or investor is ever to accept the franchise contract as security.
6
- In the search for ways to expand outdoor recreation facilities
by public assistance to private investment, the public interest is the d e
terminant.
Whichever of the two objectives -- social or economic -- Is the
prime mover for the particular development must be kept uppermost.
different price tags.
They have
The private investor and the public administrator must
know in advance each objective requires certain compromises with the ideal
world, and not cry f,Uncle!M when, half-way through, he finds the price higher
than he wants to pay.
20.
@FedFRASER