Quote Originally Posted by Mike P. View Post
That is good news and nice to know in a world that seems less personal everyday that a long term employee with a White Mountain family pedigree is keeping the family tradition.
A nice thing I saw working in NH State Parks was yes, someone could work their way up through the ranks with dedication and hard work.

I think the fee would have been too difficult to manage there, and inappropriate for the location with a facility for the public that serves mainly as shelter and relief in a decidedly harsh setting. I worked at a NH state park for years with a 'Checkpoint Charlie' toll booth limiting entry and requiring a service charge before you reach the trailhead parking and toilets. We were instructed to not give maps or let people park and use the toilets unless they paid the service charge, since the philosophy was that the toilets were one of the services you needed to be paying for. We really struggled with this as staff because it was mean-spirited and quite inappropriate, and only led to cars spinning around the tollbooth and stopping down the park driveway for less than modest relief, and was just really bad PR. So staff decided to put a time framework on the service charge requirement, and serve the public need more appropriately by saying along the lines of "...well we have a per person service charge to use the park, but if you need to just stretch your legs and relieve yourself in the restrooms, you can use the park for 15 minutes or so without paying....". This most often led to the persons usually deciding to stay a little longer and coming back to the booth to pay for a little walk that was short of the big hike we were supposedly charging for the use of the facilities/resource.
In the case of Mt. Wash it would be sad to see the public seeking relief denied entry at the Sherman Adams building due to a fee requirement. The whole point of the aggressive retail/food service operation is to help float the operational costs of the park along with the communications leases with one goal to keep the facility open to the public without a fee. Now you have 2 businesses relying heavily on the facilities to support their customers experience, with only one of them participating on the financial agreement, but this heavy use and its impact is largely driven by those businesses. The problem is obvious, and the attitude of some is concerning. I would think a business owner should feel irresponsible if they have not provided basic toilet facilities to their customers throughout the experience the business owner is providing, whether through a partnership with the owner of a facility they are arriving at, or provide it with your own resources.
I have not followed every detail in these discussions between the players, but my guess is that one of them is saying/thinking …well then the hikers should be paying too…but I don’t see this at all as the same as businesses bringing visitors and the business having to step up and pay. The world is full of imperfect funding models, just think of the Pittman – Robertson Act Pittman–Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act - Wikipedia. We all figured the whole reason Presby proposed his hotel was only to make it seem more palatable for him to eventually build a new summit building with hotel as a lessor evil.