Public vs. Private tourist spots

My wife had a meeting in Lynchburg, Virginia, last week, so I tagged along.  While she was busy, I explored.  I went to Appomattox Court House to see where the Civil War ended.  (Did you know that Appomattox Court House is not the name of the building where Lee and Grant met to sign the terms of surrender?  Rather, Appomattox Court House is the name of the TOWN.  Not to be confused with Appomattox, Virginia, which is nearby.   Appomattox Court House was a little town that doesn’t exist any more, but the National Park Service has rebuilt part of it, restoring about half of the original buildings.  You can go to the Court House, but it’s now the Visitors’ Center.  The site of the surrender is the McLean House, which was owned by a prominent local merchant.   Most of the population had fled the war, but Grant’s adjutant, looking for a place to hold the meeting, did not want to break into someone’s home without permission.  Fortunately, Mr. McClean was still around and offered his home.   The site today is very moving, portrayed as the place where the nation came together again.  The film and exhibits put a lot of emphasis on how Grant and his army honored Lee and the defeated Confederates, refusing to vaunt over them and how both armies put on elaborate rituals of mutual respect.

Then I went to Red Hill, which was Patrick Henry’s home.  He had a nice spread, on the top of a beautiful hill, but his house was tiny, just a simple square whitewashed dwelling, far different from the palatial Mt. Vernon of George Washington and the sophisticated Monticello of Thomas Jefferson.  The obligatory movie had some fascinating clips of Henry’s speeches.  He really could turn a phrase, and his eloquence is moving even today.  Red Hill is run by a privately endowed foundation.  It is quite nice and well-preserved, out in the middle of nowhere, and I was the only visitor at the time.

Later, on our way back home, we stopped at Natural Bridge, a huge stone archway some 200 feet tall.  Perhaps Virginia’s oldest tourist attraction, George Washington as a young surveyor supposedly carved “G.W.” in the stone, initials that go way back and that are currently marked with a white rectangle.  Then we drove home by way of the Blue Ridge Parkway, which turned into Skyline Drive at Shenandoah National Park, 105 miles of a 35 mph speedlimit, winding roads of sublime vistas.

Here is my topic for discussion:  Conservatives generally prefer privatization to the government running things.  But when it comes to National Parks and other National Monuments (such as Appomattox Court House and Shenandoah National Park), they tend to be better presented than commercially-run attractions.   The Natural Bridge was magnificent, but you had to go through a souvenir shop to get to the path through the woods, and it was accompanied by a wax museum, an Indian village, a toy museum, a butterfly exhibit, and a hotel.   Don’t get me wrong:  the attraction is worth going to, with well-kept paths and helpful staff.  But there sure was a lot of commercialism.  The National Park service, in contrast, made everything accessible, but it was also kept relatively pristine, with a helpful ranger to tell you all about it.  I suppose the Patrick Henry site shows another option:  It is private but not commercial, with the foundation being devoted to preservation rather than turning a profit, so it doesn’t matter that much whether anyone comes to see it or not.  Still, could we agree that certain historical and natural sites are best thought of as public goods, like roads and the military, and so the legitimate business of the federal government?  Or do you think the principle of private ownership should extend even to what are now national parks and monuments, with the inevitable commercialization simply the price we have to pay?

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Pete

    Good post. Tough questions. We went to Natural Bridge a few years back and I don’t recall the commercialism (other than all the billboards for miles around) but do recall being impressed by the bridge itself.
    A somewhat analogous issue came up this past weekend as I was watching the U.S. Open Golf Championship and my wife made the observation that golfers’ attire is beginning to evolve towards that of Nascar drivers with trademarks popping up all over.

  • Pete

    Good post. Tough questions. We went to Natural Bridge a few years back and I don’t recall the commercialism (other than all the billboards for miles around) but do recall being impressed by the bridge itself.
    A somewhat analogous issue came up this past weekend as I was watching the U.S. Open Golf Championship and my wife made the observation that golfers’ attire is beginning to evolve towards that of Nascar drivers with trademarks popping up all over.

  • larry

    I agree, and I’m very pro free market, but something always gets lost in shear commercialization as opposed to privatization. It always moves toward cheap, chintzy and nearly anything for a buck with some schlep hawking something.

    To add to the golf experience; we’ve seen the same thing here in KY where NCAA basketball is a way of life and UK king. My wife and I were just discussing how it use to be that you where a fan of a very real nameable team with a nameable coach and memorable named players, dynasties built etc… Now it moves ever increasingly toward branding and commercializing the former dynasty, the players have become so transient and the branding so prominent that their names are quickly and easily forgotten and little more than like Nintendo generated jersey’s with numerical identifiers on their shirts. Last year’s blue chippers are quickly replaced for this years, so fast and so branded and so commercially that the only thing that remains is the “blue chip” but not the named player/team, etc… What’s lost at length is the “soul” and essence of a thing for its outer shell only.

  • larry

    I agree, and I’m very pro free market, but something always gets lost in shear commercialization as opposed to privatization. It always moves toward cheap, chintzy and nearly anything for a buck with some schlep hawking something.

    To add to the golf experience; we’ve seen the same thing here in KY where NCAA basketball is a way of life and UK king. My wife and I were just discussing how it use to be that you where a fan of a very real nameable team with a nameable coach and memorable named players, dynasties built etc… Now it moves ever increasingly toward branding and commercializing the former dynasty, the players have become so transient and the branding so prominent that their names are quickly and easily forgotten and little more than like Nintendo generated jersey’s with numerical identifiers on their shirts. Last year’s blue chippers are quickly replaced for this years, so fast and so branded and so commercially that the only thing that remains is the “blue chip” but not the named player/team, etc… What’s lost at length is the “soul” and essence of a thing for its outer shell only.

  • larry

    I agree, and I’m very pro free market, but something always gets lost in shear commercialization as opposed to privatization.

    Should read:

    I agree, and I’m very pro free market, but something always gets lost in shear commercialization as opposed to PUBLIC.

  • larry

    I agree, and I’m very pro free market, but something always gets lost in shear commercialization as opposed to privatization.

    Should read:

    I agree, and I’m very pro free market, but something always gets lost in shear commercialization as opposed to PUBLIC.

  • Orianna Laun

    Interesting question in light of what is currently happening here in St. Louis with Grant’s Farm and the Arch.
    Grant’s Farm is currently owned by InBev (the company which took over Budweiser), and they would like the National Park Service to take it on for various reasons. I believe the actual home in which Grant lived is currently government-run, not part of the larger part of Grant’s Farm.
    The Arch and its grounds are part of the National Park Service. The locals want to make changes to the grounds to effect tourism–after going up to the top of the Arch, watching the movie and walking around the museum, there is really not much more draw to keep people down by the river front. The problem is government regulation to prevent over-commercialization of the area.
    On the one hand, one cannot help but think of pork barrels and weird museums which get funding. (Does the Pez Museum get our tax dollars?) On the other hand, there are so many places that are part of our national heritage that need the resources that a small, non-profit group can hardly raise and maintain.
    I guess the short answer is: it’s a toss-up.

  • Orianna Laun

    Interesting question in light of what is currently happening here in St. Louis with Grant’s Farm and the Arch.
    Grant’s Farm is currently owned by InBev (the company which took over Budweiser), and they would like the National Park Service to take it on for various reasons. I believe the actual home in which Grant lived is currently government-run, not part of the larger part of Grant’s Farm.
    The Arch and its grounds are part of the National Park Service. The locals want to make changes to the grounds to effect tourism–after going up to the top of the Arch, watching the movie and walking around the museum, there is really not much more draw to keep people down by the river front. The problem is government regulation to prevent over-commercialization of the area.
    On the one hand, one cannot help but think of pork barrels and weird museums which get funding. (Does the Pez Museum get our tax dollars?) On the other hand, there are so many places that are part of our national heritage that need the resources that a small, non-profit group can hardly raise and maintain.
    I guess the short answer is: it’s a toss-up.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    I’m thinking that the most grotesque “attractions” are those where nobody cares about the overall brand. I remember being appalled by Gatlinburg, TN and certain parts of the Black Hills. On the flip side, Steamboat Springs takes careful care of its “brand”, and hence it’s a privately owned resort that’s really nice.

    For another example of privately held attractions which are well taken care of; Disneyland, Disneyworld. Again, it’s all about protecting the “brand” against those who would debase it.

    On the flip side, one down side I’ve noticed with government running the national parks is that the lack of competition often leads to simply poor service. When my wife and I honeymooned at Glacier, we quickly became appalled at the food service in the main hotels–and quickly learned to find small restaurants offsite on the Blackfeet reservation.

  • http://www.bikebubba.blogspot.com bike bubba

    I’m thinking that the most grotesque “attractions” are those where nobody cares about the overall brand. I remember being appalled by Gatlinburg, TN and certain parts of the Black Hills. On the flip side, Steamboat Springs takes careful care of its “brand”, and hence it’s a privately owned resort that’s really nice.

    For another example of privately held attractions which are well taken care of; Disneyland, Disneyworld. Again, it’s all about protecting the “brand” against those who would debase it.

    On the flip side, one down side I’ve noticed with government running the national parks is that the lack of competition often leads to simply poor service. When my wife and I honeymooned at Glacier, we quickly became appalled at the food service in the main hotels–and quickly learned to find small restaurants offsite on the Blackfeet reservation.

  • Joe

    In Milwaukee we have had a few attempts a public/private partnerships that seem to work very well. Red Arrow Park and Lake Park are the two I am thinking of. Red Arrow Park is where the City Christmas Tree and the ice skating ring are every winter. It is essentially a half block of downtown prime real estate. The City or County (I can’t remember which entity owns the park) rents out a building on the site to Starbucks. Those rents offset the costs of maintaining the park.

    Lake Park is home to a small golf course, a light house, a lawn bowling facility and the best view of Lake Michigan in the City. It is also home to Lake Park Bistro a world class restaurant housed in the old concessions/admin building on the grounds. Again the rents off set the cost of maintaining the park.

    My point is it does not have to be an either/or. It can be a both/and.

  • Joe

    In Milwaukee we have had a few attempts a public/private partnerships that seem to work very well. Red Arrow Park and Lake Park are the two I am thinking of. Red Arrow Park is where the City Christmas Tree and the ice skating ring are every winter. It is essentially a half block of downtown prime real estate. The City or County (I can’t remember which entity owns the park) rents out a building on the site to Starbucks. Those rents offset the costs of maintaining the park.

    Lake Park is home to a small golf course, a light house, a lawn bowling facility and the best view of Lake Michigan in the City. It is also home to Lake Park Bistro a world class restaurant housed in the old concessions/admin building on the grounds. Again the rents off set the cost of maintaining the park.

    My point is it does not have to be an either/or. It can be a both/and.

  • http://www.wordoflifelbc.org Pastor Ed

    Interesting side note:
    Wilmar McLean (the owner of the house where Grant and Lee met to discuss the terms of surrender) moved to Appomattox in 1863 to avoid the clashing armies. He had previously owned a farm about 120 miles to the north in Manassas, Virginia. In July of 1861, in the first major engagement of the Civil War (the first Battle of Bull Run, aka Manassas Junction) his house served as the headquarters of the Confederate General P.T. Beauregard. McLean is quoted as saying that “the war started in my front yard and ended in my front parlor.”

  • http://www.wordoflifelbc.org Pastor Ed

    Interesting side note:
    Wilmar McLean (the owner of the house where Grant and Lee met to discuss the terms of surrender) moved to Appomattox in 1863 to avoid the clashing armies. He had previously owned a farm about 120 miles to the north in Manassas, Virginia. In July of 1861, in the first major engagement of the Civil War (the first Battle of Bull Run, aka Manassas Junction) his house served as the headquarters of the Confederate General P.T. Beauregard. McLean is quoted as saying that “the war started in my front yard and ended in my front parlor.”

  • DonS

    There is certainly a role for national and state park services, and places of particular historical or natural importance are properly preserved as public property. But, there is nothing wrong with seeking public/private partnerships and establishing foundations to fund and operate them, so that between user fees and donors, no public taxpayer money is required.

    The problem we have is that government owns far too much property, particularly in the west, because establishing national forests, monuments, and parks have historically been political pork. It cannot properly maintain all that it has, and cannot properly prioritize available parks budgets to the most important landmarks because of political considerations. So, we have a mess.

    Another thing that happens is that parks become fodder every time there is a budget crisis. Government starts moaning that its revenues are inadequate and so it’s going to have to close the parks, and cut back on fire and police protection. Always the things that tick off the public, so that they will support more taxes, etc.

    We would be far better off with a park service about 1/3 as large as it is now, narrowly tailored and tasked to protecting true national treasures, and funded entirely independently of taxpayers.

  • DonS

    There is certainly a role for national and state park services, and places of particular historical or natural importance are properly preserved as public property. But, there is nothing wrong with seeking public/private partnerships and establishing foundations to fund and operate them, so that between user fees and donors, no public taxpayer money is required.

    The problem we have is that government owns far too much property, particularly in the west, because establishing national forests, monuments, and parks have historically been political pork. It cannot properly maintain all that it has, and cannot properly prioritize available parks budgets to the most important landmarks because of political considerations. So, we have a mess.

    Another thing that happens is that parks become fodder every time there is a budget crisis. Government starts moaning that its revenues are inadequate and so it’s going to have to close the parks, and cut back on fire and police protection. Always the things that tick off the public, so that they will support more taxes, etc.

    We would be far better off with a park service about 1/3 as large as it is now, narrowly tailored and tasked to protecting true national treasures, and funded entirely independently of taxpayers.

  • Cincinnatus

    Not that my opinion is of particular value, but I have no problem in principle with a national park service, state parks, and other properly public–as in, publicly owned–natural landmarks and historical sites. In fact, public preservation of sites of unique natural or historical interest seems right and proper to this conserve-ative. On the other hand, having visited many attractions both public and private of the sort you mention, I see no standard distinction between public and private attractions. Both charge money. Both advertise. Both usually have garish souvenir outlets. Both, in fact, care for the properties in question because both have a vested interest in doing so (no one will visit a private attraction if it’s falling apart; same goes for park services, which are statutorily obligated to care for their properties). Both are subject to the whims of the economy, ultimately. And DonS is right: quite often, the private parks/sites are far better maintained than the public parks. And sometimes not. The private/public divide isn’t predictive here.

    In other words, the notion that private parks are run by villainous capitalists out for their own interests at the expense of the poor, natural beauty be damned, while public parks are pristine realms of natural wonder freely accessible to everyone is a giant straw man. My experience, at least, dictates otherwise.

    As it is, politicians always use national parks, etc., as a bogeyman when budget cuts are necessary: “We’ll destroy NATURE if we cut the budget! And think of all the family vacations that will be ruined!” Yeah, whatever. On the list of governmental priorities, the park service shouldn’t be that high. And maybe if they sold some of the bagillions of acres they own out West, we wouldn’t need to have this discussion…

  • Cincinnatus

    Not that my opinion is of particular value, but I have no problem in principle with a national park service, state parks, and other properly public–as in, publicly owned–natural landmarks and historical sites. In fact, public preservation of sites of unique natural or historical interest seems right and proper to this conserve-ative. On the other hand, having visited many attractions both public and private of the sort you mention, I see no standard distinction between public and private attractions. Both charge money. Both advertise. Both usually have garish souvenir outlets. Both, in fact, care for the properties in question because both have a vested interest in doing so (no one will visit a private attraction if it’s falling apart; same goes for park services, which are statutorily obligated to care for their properties). Both are subject to the whims of the economy, ultimately. And DonS is right: quite often, the private parks/sites are far better maintained than the public parks. And sometimes not. The private/public divide isn’t predictive here.

    In other words, the notion that private parks are run by villainous capitalists out for their own interests at the expense of the poor, natural beauty be damned, while public parks are pristine realms of natural wonder freely accessible to everyone is a giant straw man. My experience, at least, dictates otherwise.

    As it is, politicians always use national parks, etc., as a bogeyman when budget cuts are necessary: “We’ll destroy NATURE if we cut the budget! And think of all the family vacations that will be ruined!” Yeah, whatever. On the list of governmental priorities, the park service shouldn’t be that high. And maybe if they sold some of the bagillions of acres they own out West, we wouldn’t need to have this discussion…

  • JonSLC

    Here in Utah, home to five national parks and several national monuments, we have much federally owned and protected land that is rich in natural resources. The question then arises: Is the federal government wisely protecting national treasures from big businesses who would exploit and ruin them? Or is the federal government putting unnecessary roadblocks in front of economic expansion, new jobs, etc.? I’m sure that other states face similar questions. It’s a tough question.

  • JonSLC

    Here in Utah, home to five national parks and several national monuments, we have much federally owned and protected land that is rich in natural resources. The question then arises: Is the federal government wisely protecting national treasures from big businesses who would exploit and ruin them? Or is the federal government putting unnecessary roadblocks in front of economic expansion, new jobs, etc.? I’m sure that other states face similar questions. It’s a tough question.

  • DonS

    An example, I believe, of a well preserved, maintained, and operated national landmark, which is completely privately owned and operated, is Williamsburg.

  • DonS

    An example, I believe, of a well preserved, maintained, and operated national landmark, which is completely privately owned and operated, is Williamsburg.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Joe (@6), is it me, or are the “public/private partnerships” you describe, at their heart, still publicly owned? I mean, some entity’s name is on the deed — is it a government one, or a private one? The fact that the government may choose to allow various degrees of commercial activity on their land (from the selling of gift shop items, to brand sponsorship, to the building of private store fronts) doesn’t really diminish the public ownership of the place. But perhaps I’m splitting hairs.

    On a different note, Red Arrow Park sounds an awful lot like Portland’s Pioneer Square (as well as Director Park), both of which are public spaces on prime downtown blocks, as well as featuring commercial store fronts (Pioneer Square also has a Starbucks).

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Joe (@6), is it me, or are the “public/private partnerships” you describe, at their heart, still publicly owned? I mean, some entity’s name is on the deed — is it a government one, or a private one? The fact that the government may choose to allow various degrees of commercial activity on their land (from the selling of gift shop items, to brand sponsorship, to the building of private store fronts) doesn’t really diminish the public ownership of the place. But perhaps I’m splitting hairs.

    On a different note, Red Arrow Park sounds an awful lot like Portland’s Pioneer Square (as well as Director Park), both of which are public spaces on prime downtown blocks, as well as featuring commercial store fronts (Pioneer Square also has a Starbucks).

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Cincinnatus (@9), in an anecdote battle, I believe the tie goes to the person who is older, and has therefore accumulated more anecdotes. Sorry.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Cincinnatus (@9), in an anecdote battle, I believe the tie goes to the person who is older, and has therefore accumulated more anecdotes. Sorry.

  • Cincinnatus

    tODD@13: Anecdote battle? It wasn’t really a battle: I’ve visited all the sites Veith mentions (I was born and raised in Virginia) plus many more across the country. That’s not a claim to superiority but equality of experience on this question.

    Anyway, did I even disagree with Veith? Is there an actual battle happening? If so, I should probably gather some weapons, as I rather thought we were having something of a heated agreement.

  • Cincinnatus

    tODD@13: Anecdote battle? It wasn’t really a battle: I’ve visited all the sites Veith mentions (I was born and raised in Virginia) plus many more across the country. That’s not a claim to superiority but equality of experience on this question.

    Anyway, did I even disagree with Veith? Is there an actual battle happening? If so, I should probably gather some weapons, as I rather thought we were having something of a heated agreement.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Cincinnatus (@14), my comment was largely frivolous, but…

    Veith:

    When it comes to National Parks and other National Monuments …, they tend to be better presented than commercially-run attractions.

    He then goes on to describe his experience at the Natural Bridge, replete with “a lot of commercialism”: “a wax museum, an Indian village, a toy museum, a butterfly exhibit, and a hotel”. And then describes how the “National Park service, in contrast, … kept relatively pristine”

    You’d said (@9):

    The notion that private parks are run by villainous capitalists out for their own interests at the expense of the poor, natural beauty be damned, while public parks are pristine realms of natural wonder freely accessible to everyone is a giant straw man. My experience, at least, dictates otherwise.

    Again, it boils down to whose experiences win. Looks like a draw, so Veith wins.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Cincinnatus (@14), my comment was largely frivolous, but…

    Veith:

    When it comes to National Parks and other National Monuments …, they tend to be better presented than commercially-run attractions.

    He then goes on to describe his experience at the Natural Bridge, replete with “a lot of commercialism”: “a wax museum, an Indian village, a toy museum, a butterfly exhibit, and a hotel”. And then describes how the “National Park service, in contrast, … kept relatively pristine”

    You’d said (@9):

    The notion that private parks are run by villainous capitalists out for their own interests at the expense of the poor, natural beauty be damned, while public parks are pristine realms of natural wonder freely accessible to everyone is a giant straw man. My experience, at least, dictates otherwise.

    Again, it boils down to whose experiences win. Looks like a draw, so Veith wins.

  • Cincinnatus

    Oops, tODD, you’re right about the apparent disagreement. And seniority does trump all in the event of a tie, I suppose.

    But I suggest that Veith and I actually agree in spirit: he notes that Patrick Henry’s house (which is indeed in the middle of nowhere) is operated by a private agency in a manner equal to or superior to public attractions.

    So his quip about Natural Bridge is merely perspectival. In any case, I actually disagree with him: the town of Natural Bridge is indeed a tourist trap–wax museums, garish billboards, obnoxious souvenir shops–but the Bridge itself and its immediate surroundings are quite nice, comparable to natural landmarks managed by the government. In other words, it is managed competently and respectfully. Compare Acadia National Park in Maine–a wonderful place–to the town of Bar Harbor at its gates–in my opinion, another garish tourist trap. cf.: Mount Rushmore (which is actually quite commercialized itself) and its surrounding towns (egads, my eyes!). Or, heck, the travesty that is the Liberty Bell! The Bell itself is an insignificant speck in the middle of a sprawling concrete structure filled to the brim with displays, gift shops, and other unnecessaries.

    In short, there seem to be a number of factors complicating a simple comparison between evil capitalists and virtuous public servants in this case.

  • Cincinnatus

    Oops, tODD, you’re right about the apparent disagreement. And seniority does trump all in the event of a tie, I suppose.

    But I suggest that Veith and I actually agree in spirit: he notes that Patrick Henry’s house (which is indeed in the middle of nowhere) is operated by a private agency in a manner equal to or superior to public attractions.

    So his quip about Natural Bridge is merely perspectival. In any case, I actually disagree with him: the town of Natural Bridge is indeed a tourist trap–wax museums, garish billboards, obnoxious souvenir shops–but the Bridge itself and its immediate surroundings are quite nice, comparable to natural landmarks managed by the government. In other words, it is managed competently and respectfully. Compare Acadia National Park in Maine–a wonderful place–to the town of Bar Harbor at its gates–in my opinion, another garish tourist trap. cf.: Mount Rushmore (which is actually quite commercialized itself) and its surrounding towns (egads, my eyes!). Or, heck, the travesty that is the Liberty Bell! The Bell itself is an insignificant speck in the middle of a sprawling concrete structure filled to the brim with displays, gift shops, and other unnecessaries.

    In short, there seem to be a number of factors complicating a simple comparison between evil capitalists and virtuous public servants in this case.

  • Cincinnatus

    i.e., while I’m not an active advocate of privatization of our public parks (as some libertarians are), I see no evidence that doing so (to save government money, for example) would lead to the mass expropriation of our lands and national treasures as apocalyptic opponents of such proposals hysterically suggest.

  • Cincinnatus

    i.e., while I’m not an active advocate of privatization of our public parks (as some libertarians are), I see no evidence that doing so (to save government money, for example) would lead to the mass expropriation of our lands and national treasures as apocalyptic opponents of such proposals hysterically suggest.

  • Joe

    tODD – In these partnerships the gov’t still owns the property but the private entities have fairly significant leasehold rights. The cash influx and the participation of an entity that has a financial interest in keep the property in good repair seem to be the biggest benefits to these arraignments. One interesting thing to note is that the parts of Lake Park that are visible from the Bistro (i.e. lawn bowling and golf course) are in much better shape than the light house which is largely neglected. (it is a fairly large park).

  • Joe

    tODD – In these partnerships the gov’t still owns the property but the private entities have fairly significant leasehold rights. The cash influx and the participation of an entity that has a financial interest in keep the property in good repair seem to be the biggest benefits to these arraignments. One interesting thing to note is that the parts of Lake Park that are visible from the Bistro (i.e. lawn bowling and golf course) are in much better shape than the light house which is largely neglected. (it is a fairly large park).

  • Joe

    Perhaps Ron Swanson said it best:

  • Joe

    Perhaps Ron Swanson said it best:


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X