Broke park system gives workers free housing

pappilli0n said on April 7, 2011 at 4:53 PM

You peopl who think the rangers suffer so and that's why they get the perks that the get......think again. Rangers are rangers because they like working as rangers in the great outdoors, on river banks, in a lookout tower, on back roads, I could go on and on andon. I've never met a ranger would go elsewhere for more money ad work in an office.

pappilli0n said on April 7, 2011 at 4:50 PM

Can't find the salt shaker? I'm locked out of my car? So you pay next to nothing in rent to "have you in the area 24-7.?" Hey, over here, I'm a renter on Puget Sound 24-7 , but my ren is $925/month. I think I smell a rat and it's being fed pritine cheese. It's like the ferry workers getting paid extra for cleaning up vomit...golly, no one told 'em people will do that on moving ferries? How utterly ridiculous to go along with "perks" like these. Reminds me of why I don't tolerate people with money....NO ONE GETS THEIR LARGE SALRIES OR PERKS WITHOUT HAVING SCREWED ANOTHER PERSON.

prestolog said on March 31, 2011 at 9:59 AM

"Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned / Nor hell a fury like a woman scorned." This, I speculate, is what is fueling Ms. Frame's fire. There can be no other logical explanation. Question is, who, if anyone, in state government is it? This may require some "investigative reporting."

sourstraw said on February 25, 2011 at 10:44 PM

I am almost disgusted at myself that I read this article. This was quite possibly the most transparent and shamefully biased piece of "reporting" I have ever seen. Park Rangers don't live in "free" housing. They pay utilities for their houses based on the size of the home, and in exchange for the low cost of living, they provide the State with upkeep of the home and also 24/7 presence in OUR State Parks. I'm quite sure that there are thousands and thousands of other people and programs in our state who are more of a drain on the budget than a handful of park rangers who dedicate their lives to service by opting to live on site at a park in order to better protect the citizens and resources of Washington. Ms. Frame : When you research a story and discover that it's a BUST, here's an idea - DON'T CONTINUE THE INVESTIGATION.

ralphradford said on February 25, 2011 at 9:12 PM

State Park housing is a joke, a really bad joke. The best houses go to park supervisors, who are already making a good income. The entry level ranger may get no housing, or a really run down house. The park supervisor then makes the entry level ranger work the midnight shift, sometimes till 2 in the morning to solve all the problems. The park supervisor gets his full night of slept in his 165.00 house and doesn't have to respond to any calls. So, this is a great situation for all those park employees who know how to play the system for their best interest in mind.

darhino said on February 25, 2011 at 8:41 PM

Wow Susanna you really blew this one! Shame on you and King 5. Other than a few State haters it looks like folks got it right! Our States Park Rangers are some of our unsung heros. Free housing? Um it's not free, it's compensation. They are there 24/7 although they only get paid 40 hrs a week, unless its a furlough day nothing there. I have been on the knucle end of a couple of those late night "god I hope they are gonna hear me knocking" situations. I lost a scout at Millersylvania whose patrol took him on a midnight snipe hunt and lost him, and again when the folks a couple of campsites down decided to extend drinking hours after returning from the bar, building a bon fire and yelling obsenities at 3am. The Ranger never uttered a word of complaint, in fact they thanked me for waking them up, and they jumped into service immediately, & professionally. I would not think any more of charging them rent than I would a fireman living at the fire station.

lsmith5870400119 said on February 25, 2011 at 7:18 PM

This reporter is a typical Seattle sloth.

jimhendrixx said on February 25, 2011 at 5:41 PM

Shame on you King5, SHAME.

fastnlast said on February 25, 2011 at 3:56 PM

There are many facts throughout these comments that are not accurate. The highest level Park Manager (like the one in the story) makes more than $75,000 per year plus full benefits. On that salary, they can afford to pay some rent. They pay NO rent. They pay for utilties, however the rate is based on square footage which has a maximum (for example, if the house is 2500 square feet, the ranger only pays utilties based on the maximum, 1600 or so). What a deal! Yes, they may get called out, but they are not required to live on site. In fact, some own their own homes and go home on their days off. They aren't even there to respond to emergencies on their days off. But when they do, they are paid for that time. Someone mentioned that a ranger works 160 in a month which is less than 40 hours per week. They have to work 160 in 28 days - 40 per week. Anything over that is overtime. Some parks have multiple staff living on site - is this really necessary?

cdking said on February 25, 2011 at 3:48 PM

We had gone through this parks budget thing a bit ago and instituted a $5 opt out/opt in fee on our licences. When the funds came rolling in and were added to the parks floundering budget the windfall was to much for the greedy likes of our Governor to see. She wrung her anxious hands and let the newly acquired funds be added to the parks revenues. Then she went in the back door and took the existing parks funds away. She lied, cheated and manipulated the system for her own interests. The monies collected were to be used as an addition to the existing parks budget. They were not meant to have the original funds (miss) appropriated because of a new tax on the people. Reinstate the original parks budgets and be darned well sure to add the new revenues collected from our licence fees. King 5, shame on you for conveniently overlooking this small detail!!! As far as I am concerned the parks personal can live there for free. They probably aren't paid that much anyway.

carlsequim said on February 25, 2011 at 1:59 PM

This is a pitiful excuse for investigative reporting. It totally fails to account for the many benefits that accrue to the parks from having these buildings occupied by employees, from having personnel on hand to deal with emergencies to the preservation of structures that occurs when they are lived in. The "report" also ignores the fact that these workers are poorly paid in comparison to workers in the private sector, making such a perk, if it can be so considered, more than justified. If the state parks were forced to charge market rates to their employees in park housing, basic fairness would require that salaries also be raised to market rates, clearly wiping out any potential gains to park revenues. The parks need to be supported by a combination of reasonable user fees and general tax revenue, to reflect that the parks are a resource for all of us and that some of us also enjoy some specific benefits when we use them. Find something significant to investigate!

landesign1999 said on February 25, 2011 at 12:56 PM

Hey KING 5, you're going to have to either delete or retract this story for the anger to subside. Don't just move it to the "back page." An apology to all concerned, especially all those "care takers" out there would be in order. How about it? Are you big enough to admit a mistake? Thank you.

befree23 said on February 25, 2011 at 11:11 AM

Do your homework, "investigators!" The people who live in those houses, cabins and huts aren't renters, they are *caretakers* not only of the buildings but of the parks that benefit all of us. Park rangers and other government employees who care for and monitor our park systems are unsung heroes; they've helped my family on several occasions. Once they even responded in the middle of the night to a person who was standing in the middle of our campsite, screaming obscenities. They took the person away and helped me comfort my kids - that trip it was just me and our 3 kids - and the rangers' assistance was priceless. I work in property management and we give our employees a large discount to live on-site so that they are there to help the residents and protect the property investment. Look at the big picture, investigators, before you yell forest fire.

davebrownspoint said on February 25, 2011 at 8:01 AM

Hey King 5 how about a public apology on this? The overwhelming majority of bloggers here are correct, your reporting is reprehensible, so what's the consequence? Nothing? This "story" is still posted. The reporters and editors still have jobs. How about some action!

notyrants said on February 25, 2011 at 7:07 AM

Hmm, sad what we are being "informed" of by the corporate media. Wouldn't investigative reporting include a pie chart to illustrate what percentage this alleged waste really amounts to in the state budget? There is no point in wiping up the water soiled floor from an overflowing toilet until the flow is stopped. While this is a state budget we ALL do pay into the federal government. 60% of our federal taxes go to the "defense industry". We heavily subsidize this industry and the "profits" are privatized.

landesign1999 said on February 25, 2011 at 12:10 AM

Charge rent based on property value and most would move out and many of the structures - some historic - would probably be burned down by vandals by the end of the year. What a waste that would be. The philosophy of trying to squeeze every dollar out of every situation without regard for individual circumstances is a silly cookie cutter solution. Cut waste where it exists and stop looking for situations that seem unfair if portrayed in a certain light. Did Susannah really stop and think about this before writing this story, or did she pursue it because she knew how to make a benign situation appear as another case of blatant fraud? Perspective just goes out the window in a rush to point fingers - and then gleam in the limelight as the finger pointer. That isn't journalism. It's cheap and below-the-belt.

charleylechein said on February 24, 2011 at 11:16 PM

"NOOSE FLASH, SEATTLE WASHINGTON: BELO (PARENT COMPANY OWNER of NOOSE sources) and KINGTV5 have jointly ordered an investigation and classes on "The Meaning and Meandering of Noose Stories as Investigative Reporting".... It has discovered that SOME investigative reporting was not investigative or NOOSE or NEWS and they guility parties that GOT PAID will be required to donate money to the "FEED THE PARK RANGERS not THE ANIMALS" fund... MY COMMENT without more satirical humor... Those working in parks live in remote areas (cause we wanted the scenic parks away from the human rat race) work 24/7 AND are always on call. Housing either FREE or at a discounted rate well worth it for us. If the state is going to raise rental rates, do it gradually over 2 years AND leave the rate at 25 percent of market value, The another 75 percent can be paid by the state for being available 24/7, after all unless they are on the clock earning 20 dollars an hour, and thats not going to happen, is it?

torgerman said on February 24, 2011 at 9:57 PM

Don't really need to blast Susannah...she only needs to read the 99% feedback about her ridiculous "investigative" reporting. Hopefully her editors will scrutinize the next project a bit more carefully. As for the 1% of you who think subsidized park housing is still an issue....what do you think would happen to the parks and the buildings if no one lived there that was able to respond to vandalisms and emergencies? Oh that's right....you didn't think.

proudamerican said on February 24, 2011 at 9:34 PM

Poor journalism Ms. Frame. I will not be watching future King 5 "Investigators" stories.

tekot22 said on February 24, 2011 at 9:30 PM

Sure charge fair market value and watch the Mass Exodus of Park Rangers... I'm sure the state wants to get into the landlord business by opening the houses up to destructive tenants from the public, or have all those vacant homes they have to now pay utilities and upkeep for.

hilbilly9 said on February 24, 2011 at 9:15 PM

Wow, all of you against the lowest paid law enforcement of the state make me sick. I have the privilege to witness the most dedicated and selfless group of state employees that you will ever find, nation wide! I am the spouse/husband of a Park Ranger. I do own property but choose to live in remote parks for my wife's career because she is dedicated to the protection of parks and its visitors. I have even had to put my foot down and say NO, this is our family time park business can wait until you are on the clock. I myself have donated countless hours of skilled labor and material to the park, worth thousands of dollars (more then we would pay in rent) and I have witnessed the majority of other families donating volunteer time to the park that surpass the sum of fair market value. If someone were to treat my property the way that I see a margin of visitors treating the parks and protected lands I'd beat their eyes shut! I need a big can of bee spray for the KING 5 yellow jackets!

tabloidreporter said on February 24, 2011 at 9:00 PM

Gee, What a surprise, I have posted twice calling the investigations out, and King 5 has blocked my posts. There were no derogatory comments, or at least no more offensive than the poor, tabloid reporting under the guise of "investigative" reporting that has been televised. It appears King 5 really dosnt want any truth posted here. Perhaps because they would have to return the reward they recieved.

harshr said on February 24, 2011 at 8:55 PM

Ya lets balance the budget on the backs of those Rangers getting rich off this waste LMAO! Susannah and Guppy have you ever had to endure a bunch of loud drunks ruining your peaceful wilderness experience? I have, and who do you think responded to it? Do you think the local police force has nothing better to do than patrol parks? Lets jack up thier rent and force them to move out, I'm sure everybody will behave themselves in those wee hours of the night and make sure their pets are picked up after; if not I'm sure the State Patrol would be happy to take up the slack and come out to enforce the leash law? California has it right, lets follow their lead and charge a $100 yearly/ $15 daily ACCESS PASS and triple the camping fees that Wa. does.

mdpylot80 said on February 24, 2011 at 8:43 PM

I thing King 5 and Suzanna Frame should be embarassed by even airing this story.

homegrown22 said on February 24, 2011 at 8:28 PM

After college, I looked into working for the park system. Park workers have to be the lowest paid public servants in the state. They often work for minimum wage and live in remote areas and are responsible for what happens in the park they are looking after. On park wages, I don't know how any park worker could afford to buy a house, let alone pay high rent. Most park housing looks pretty old and shabby. As a taxpayer, I'm glad park workers can live in them for low rent, if that helps make sure we have dedicated public servants who take care of the state parklands well. Growing up in this state, state parks are where my family took our vacations. And as an adult, I continue to visit and camp in state parks. I appreciate all the care park rangers and workers take to keep our parks and campgrounds clean, safe, and orderly. If King5 wants to go after waste- try investigating how overpaid private consulting firms are that win government contracts.

juststop said on February 24, 2011 at 8:13 PM

Really? This is what King5 feels is "investigative" reporting? This story was just unbelieveably ridiculous! Parks personnel are notoriously under paid and overwhelmingly dedicated. As a citizen who has been blessed to see many of the state's parks, I don't know that I would say the Rangers and other personnel are getting away with "free housing". Several Parks employees have already commented on the level of the accomodations, and I can't imagine paying $50 to stay in a mouse and bat infesting home - let alone $150. As you can see from the majority of the comments listed here most see the housing as a common sense solution to an overarching issue at our state parks. Too bad no one at King5 was able to see that.

cuba_pete said on February 24, 2011 at 7:43 PM

KING5 also missed a great point of this story...the State of Washington paid a bunch of "think tank" geniuses (just like the one in the story if not the same one) over a million dollars to find out that the State Parks could save $50,000 by changing the way they do business. Really? REALLY? Better make the military pay fair market value for their housing as well. And, oh yeah, make sailors pay for their Caribbean cruises! Sheesh...freeloaders. And for the coupe de grace...those bloodsuckers at the space station....man, it costs a million a pop for Virgin just to give a 5 minute ride to space. Those astronauts need to pay up. And, yes, my brother is a park ranger and lives in a totally swank 700 square foot moss covered, damp state housing house, flooded yard and all. I retired from the military and sucked up all of your tax dollars, too. By the way...Park Rangers pay taxes too just like everyone else, which is where they get their pay from.

ringer said on February 24, 2011 at 7:35 PM

Do a real investigation. Take a look at the budgets. The fiscal year begins and you get a set amount to spend, say $1000. At the end of the fiscal year if you have not spent your $1000 you have to give it back and you get nothing for next fiscal year. Does this seem like a common sense thing to you? The system is broke, unions did not break it, park rangers providing a service did not break it. The way the budget is administered broke it. The suits broke it. Tell the Governor and any other highly paid Government wonk to give our money back. If you think the Union gets it all, look again. Change the budget process and watch the rewards. It should be at the beginning of the fiscal year I get $1000, what I have left at the end of the year just roll it in my budget but don't lower the budget, I am thinking a 10 to 20% budget savings right there. Sound simple. Investigate that.

datamuse said on February 24, 2011 at 7:31 PM

I don't think much of King5's news investigators if the best they can come up with is something anyone could find out from a simple Google search. A former park ranger of my acquaintance said that it was a lot like being a police officer, except you have no backup and are stuck in the middle of nowhere. You're on call 24/7 and your job includes but is not limited to rescuing people who've gotten themselves into trouble, providing medical care, finding lost items (in fact, Mike Zimmerman himself once found and mailed back to me a watch I had inadvertently left in one of the Fort Flagler park buildings--good luck getting that level of service from most state agencies!), preventing and repairing vandalism, customer service, and just about anything else you can think of. I can think of few other jobs that are as challenging. If you look at the budget shortfall for state parks, charging rangers rent would be a drop in the bucket. We need a systematic solution.

cptspank said on February 24, 2011 at 7:30 PM

One more thing why not investigate how the governor mismanaged the budget. Spending all the rainy day fund, to get us in the fiscal trouble we find ourselves in now. Or why Boeing is still HQ'd in Illinois, where taxes are better? If so, what does that say about Washington as a state to do business? Why not investigate some solutions? Be proactive, informative and supply some dialogue to find solutions that might help all the citizens of this great state get through this tough time. My two cents, for what its worth.

cptspank said on February 24, 2011 at 7:13 PM

Had to register to leae this comment. This story should not have been done. Whats next police who take thier cars home? The presence of someone in the park definately save the state money from the cost of vandalism alone. Not to mention, being never really off duty. No time where you can choose not to be home and not answer the door. Give people some credit King 5 by not trying to create a problem where there is none. The ferry reporting was good and justified. This is just muck raking nonsense. So what he has a nicer house than you or I, he paid his dues for it, Iam sure. Its only a few that are really nice. Since he doesn't have the last name of Gates he doesn't rate a water front home, I guess. Just strangers knocking on your door at anytime wanting who knows what. In a attempt to create another got ya story you really laid a egg on this one. But get Jesse is great...always a good segment.

enjuneerron said on February 24, 2011 at 7:09 PM

KING's off the mark with this one. Maybe you could investigate the fact that firemen and women are housed at fire stations, astronauts on the space station, naval aviators on aircraft carriers. Go look for real issues and quit stirring up disconent over nonissues.

dakotanative said on February 24, 2011 at 7:08 PM

Even the police didn't get this kind of support from the readers after the Lakewood shooting. The only negative comments coming from people with bogus numbers. $50 a month for garbage? Where? I pay about $25 and throwing the little garbage he produces in with all the rest of the garbage from the park is a drop in the bucket. $100 each for water and sewer? I pay $30 every 2 months for water, and his sewer is probably a septic system that is there for the park anyway. They said he pays the electricity, so the $200 there is bogus. And wanna bet the repairs and maintenance are done by the occupant? I would rather give 10 grand in benefits to a ranger than the fat cow sitting on her couch destroying her government funded house while she earns more in walfare than many people make working 40 hours a week.

maurya said on February 24, 2011 at 7:07 PM

I live in park housing. My house is located in the middle of nowhere and across from the interpretive center where I work. When I moved into the house it was infested with mice, black widow spiders and scorpions!! The flooring was 30 years old and full of holes. The toilet leak and so did all of the faucets in the house. When the wind blows and it blows nearly every day the curtains in the house move because there is no insulation in the windows. I have water that constantly runs in the basement. The potable water is heavlily clorinated because the welll is so shallow. When the well runs dry I have no water and neither does the center. There are mice and bats in the attic. At night you can lay in bed and hear them scurry around. I have plugged all of the holes to the outside that I could locate. My husband and I have used our own money to help bring the house up to liveable standards. So the next time you do investigative reporting get the rest of the whole story. I'm on call 24/7.

whistle5581 said on February 24, 2011 at 7:03 PM

I wonder how many of these posts are from Park Rangers, trying to justify the "free house" arrangements. As a tax payer and a state employee I was appalled when I watched the segment. During these difficult economic times we need to make hard decisions and every dollar counts. Now that King 5 has exposed this story, we can only hope WA Parks makes the correct moral decision and follows suit to what California has done. “No more free ride” pay fair market value or choose not to live at the park and buy your own home. I don’t doubt the Rangers work hard. In this economic times what about all the families that also have worked hard have paid their taxes and still have lost their homes. I wonder how they feel seeing this government waste. Even the Ranger in the segment stated “there was room for higher rent.” We’ll wait and hope King 5 does a follow up segment and see how the “free housing” has been cleaned up. Stay tuned…

jdlovr8598822171 said on February 24, 2011 at 6:58 PM

Give it up these guys work for low pay have to move all the time and when they retire they have no home. Why don't you try living on the wages and can't buy a home because they are moving all the time

lin1945 said on February 24, 2011 at 6:49 PM

Give it up, King5. This one is making the great majority against your reporting. There is a benefit to having rangers on the park site 24/7. I am disappointed in the reporting.

tekot22 said on February 24, 2011 at 6:27 PM

You can think of low cost housing as a perk if you want but if you consider that the perk requires your personal life be open view to the world and your personal belongings fair game to any hooligan who wants to take it who blends in with the high volume of people coming and going, and your family and loved ones being subjected to high risk situations such as gang shootings, hostage situations, armed robbery, international drug runners, and child predators you might also consider it a burden. If you were asked to expose your self to one of those dangerous situations which are all real events that have happened in Washington State Parks you might just think that the financial benefit falls short of compensating the posed risks. Perhaps a good interview for this story would have been the family of the Ranger who lives at Lake Sammamish State Park... Lets ask them how they feel about the perk of 'free' housing while they found them selves in the middle of gunfire last summer!

becthomas said on February 24, 2011 at 5:55 PM

This article is very misleading if you've been a frequent user of state parks. The state only has about 5 houses that are actually nice houses, the rest are not that great and some would even be condemed if they were not on the states land. Many parks are remote and the only way to have a ranger on duty is to have one living their, rangers not only fix problems at the parks but are also law enforcement and receive a higher level of training then the state patrol does. I'm a fiscal conservative but I have to disagree with this being a problem. Rangers have not been able to receive overtime for a few years now and they get called at all hours to deal with a variety of problems for no extra pay. If a ranger wasn't living at some of these parks then there is a good chance you would not get anyone to respond, since most of the parks have become grossly understaffed. Compairing us to CA is also ridiculous! Have you actually been to a CA state park?

hourforum said on February 24, 2011 at 5:48 PM

I think that if people gave an extra ten or twenty dollars per year ( check box) and state park type license plate to show their support should be able to use the parks year round. That would help the state, and our parks. Without the parks rangers and care takers on site- our parks would be a mess. A total mess. So yes I think they should live in these houses, pay some in rent. But for the rest of us, if we check YES on our car tabs, we should get a state park or friend of state parks license plate AND be able to use FREE any state park year round. For the others, they can pay a fee to enter the park. THAT is an idea Mrs. Frame did not mention

bucketosteam said on February 24, 2011 at 5:43 PM

It seems that according to her own story that this "perc" costs the state nothing. the Park employees pay the utilities and taxes. So onece again Mrs. Frame wants the state of washington wants us to balance the budget on the backs of state labor. Shame on you Mrs. Frame punnishing state workers wont work in wisconson and it wont work here!

happyprwife said on February 24, 2011 at 5:21 PM

As a ranger's wife, I'm obviously biased. For the most part, my husband and I help the kindest people at all hours of the night all throughout the year. However, I have had to deal with missing children, people obviously influenced by drugs and alcohol, and array of problems that we signed up for when we decided to live at the park. There were also a few misconceptions in the story, KING5 chose to show the most beautiful and luxurious Park Houses (that I didn't even existed) to sensationalize the story. We are very fortunate to have our house but like most it is closer to the size of a double-wide from 1970's than the houses shown from Flagger. Lastly, the park system isn't broke because it's poor management decisions but the lack of willingness to pay taxes for it. The park system is one of the few entities of the public that actually makes money to sustain itself.

dj5489 said on February 24, 2011 at 4:55 PM

An important piece of information here is that State Parks employees have ridiculously low salaries. Park housing is, for many parks employees, a perk that enables them to keep working for parks at all. Also, while there are a FEW spectacular properties that employees would no doubt pay more to live in, the vast majority of houses run from very simple dwellings to decaying shacks. Many families in park houses spend a lot of their own time on improvements and maintenance. I am willing to bet that this policy actually saves the park system and the state money in the long run.

notyrants said on February 24, 2011 at 4:25 PM

I'm happy to pay taxes to preserve the common good which I am well aware is not all about me. The special interests behind the hate the government propaganda have had their hands deep in the taxpayers pockets corrupting politicians both the foreign and domestic, using socially funded weaponry to unseat democratically elected leaders in other nations and copyrights to defend their advantage. Citizens of the U.S. are steadily succumbing to this ponzi scheme that is fabulously protecting and enriching a few and privatizing the commons for the benefit of fewer who will still levy taxes be they tolls. Teddy Roosevelt got it. If he had thought like the anti-american revolutionary libertarian types, a KOCH monarchy castle might have been sitting next to Mt. Rainier by now instead of a Ranger station and we the people visiting to share in one of the dwindling resources accessible to the commons that otherwise might be viewed at the price setting of a private profiteering monarchist.

saver1 said on February 24, 2011 at 4:22 PM

For a picture of the conditions a park ranger lives under, read the mystery stories by Nevada Barr. A woman park ranger works as a National Parks law enforcement officer. Barr gives a pretty good description of the life and living conditions. The early books are best, for me. I find the books to be about increasingly grisly murders of late.

saver1 said on February 24, 2011 at 4:17 PM

Another job where an employee traditionally got "free" housing was as pastor of a church. The pastor lived next door to the church in a "parsonage" and was ready to help anyone and everyone 24/7. The parsonage I lived in until I was nearly 8 had no foundation, no insulation, and no central heating. Pastors who live in parsonages are paid less, usually because the parishioners just can't afford any more. One of the big problems was that pastors who reached retirement age didn't own a home and had no savings The modern trend is for churches to provide a housing allowance. The pastor can then buy a house and start earning equity (in good times, anyway!). This same problem is something that probably afflicts park rangers. They live in a rental all their working lives, get just enough pay to live on, and at retirement have nowhere to go. I'd say the Park Department is getting an excellent deal!

kaybrown said on February 24, 2011 at 4:14 PM

Skipping the emotional hysteria, housing provided by an employer is a taxable fringe benefit unless the situation meets certain criteria and it doesn't sound like most of these housing arrangements would meet that criteria. I'm surprised the State is able to offer these benefits without it becoming an IRS issue. The short version - if it's a job requirement to live on premises then there is no tax issue - if living on premises is optional then it's a taxable benefit and needs to be reported as income at fair market value. (See IRS Publ. 15-B.2 Lodging on Business Premises.) Other than that, it makes sense for employees to live on site and I know that many of them give up valuable time and privacy for that housing benefit.

bsmods said on February 24, 2011 at 4:00 PM

Just more proof that King 5 will take anything and make it look bad. If there is no story they will make it a story and get everyone riled up..........These people are saving the camps from being trashed, the forest from being burned down, and trees from being chopped down, and keeping poachers from killing everything that moves in the woods. I think the cheap rent is a small price to pay.

avenger0099 said on February 24, 2011 at 3:59 PM

Lets see... a park ranger starts out at $34,000 and after 18 months becomes a ranger 2, $50,668. A ranger 4 tops out at $75,084. Add garbage $50.00 month, water $100.00, sewer $100.00, electric $ $150 - $200 maintenance and repairs ?? free rent $800 - $1200 sign me up...thats more than $100,000 yr. Thanks bham44 I did the math on 160 hours a month that comes to 36.9 hours per week not even a full 40 hr week , another rip off.

lighthouselive said on February 24, 2011 at 3:57 PM

I am amazed at the scathing hateful comments, but consoled by the many supporting the Park Rangers. My husband is a Park Ranger, and we have people in our private areas, knocking at our door at all hours, asking for assistance for broken legs, missing family members, lost dogs (which if they are lost, means they were off the leash to begin with). I have helped search, opened my home to strangers, and given tours to the curious, all because it's part of living in the park. I don't have to do this, and I am not a paid employee, but I do it because I care for the park we live in, and I care for the home. This report was incomplete, negative and meant to stir up anger without all the facts, which in fact it has done. It is alot less expensive for the State to provide housing for some (not all Rangers have housing available) Rangers, than to pay for security, which would not cover search and rescue, aid, CPR, and all the many diverse services the Rangers just take in stride. Bye, KING5

yessir said on February 24, 2011 at 3:44 PM

yet another attempt to demonize public employees.... Same old Wisconsin crud... and you saw with that recent punked phone call what Wisconsin's governor is really all about. Your opinions are being controlled by fox "news" pieces... you are being told to hate those serving you and love those destroying you... and you are buying it.

ljpritchard said on February 24, 2011 at 3:33 PM

Yeah I suppose you expect the Park staff to commute every day from Seattle? A building that is occupied is less likely to be vandalized? Now let me see if I get this right you think that people who have to deal on their own with everything the public throws at them which is normally the work of police, fire departments and social workers and are at often isolated locations are getting over on you? The fair market value of the property has dropped greatly and right now every trick possible is being done to prop up property values. I understand the importance of breaking down the middle class and keeping the middle class as low as possible. But when you need a park ranger do you want one there or not.

yessir said on February 24, 2011 at 3:31 PM

Les... friend... I'm very well versed with military housing... I've been there on base... and I know the "cost" at which it's provided. The point is, that likewise these rangers are providing a service and this housing is indeed part of their pay. King 5 knows this, but is busy trying to inflame the "HATE THE STATE" ogres to get more hits on their website for the advertisers (unfortunately here I am contributing to that chunder as well). Unfortunately some news companies have taken to not just "reporting" news, but "creating" it. I for one would NEVER suggest removing housing, health care, or the other very appropriate benefits from the lives of our public servants in the military... nor would I suggest removing it from other public servants who serve us in our communities.

iampam said on February 24, 2011 at 3:26 PM

bham44 you are correct. Once Park Rangers are commissioned, they work 160 hours a month, this can often work out to well over 8 hours/day. Overtime has always been discouraged, and for the past 2 years you have had to get approval to get it (which is rarely granted unless an area is severely short staffed during the summer). Most police officers have quite a bit of opportunity to boost their pay by working overtime. Park Rangers generally do not have this opportunity. They do get a shift differential for responding to calls in the middle of the might... a whopping 65 cents an hour.

fondad said on February 24, 2011 at 3:22 PM

It is not broken don't fix it!!! You have no idea what the savings are if they had to hire the extra people it woud take to pay other people in time benefits and hours worked. It might seem trivial to you. but those added hours will add up to more than fair rent value. the safty factor of having someone on call for emergency's lost campers a deterent to hardened criminals. and criminals of opportunity. Leave the Rangers Alone they do the jobs up above and beyond there call of duty figure out there wages at twenty four house a day with overtime aafter 8 and see what it comes up too . The wages they recieve now plus the rent they pay doesn''t even come close to what it woud cost to hire personell 24/7 .

s10maniac said on February 24, 2011 at 3:18 PM

I think they should give them a fair deal on rent but $160 a month seems way to low. I like it how that ranger actually agreed that they should increase the rent.

bham44 said on February 24, 2011 at 3:11 PM

In addition to ponderer's comment below: to my knowledge, Park Rangers work on a cyclical schedule, meaning160 hr/month. Therefore, they could realistically work 12, 15, hour days with no additional compensation. Rangers respond at all hours of the day/night and do not receive overtime for any of it.

ponderer said on February 24, 2011 at 2:59 PM

I think this is known as "barking up the wrong tree"; I've not seen a Ranger working in our state parks who isn't putting in long hours and working in difficult conditions some of the times. Since these men and women that live in the park are often on call 24 hours a day (I don't know if they get overtime for anything beyond an eight hour day, but I doubt it) I won't begrudge them having a rent free or low rent place to live. This is like having a building manager in an apartment complex, they often get free or low rent as compensation; yet apartment managers hardly deal with all the work that a Ranger does. I don't know how much a Ranger is paid, but I suspect it isn't as much as it should be (just like teachers, police officers, fire fighters, etc). What happened with the state ferry system was people "working the system"; our state park Rangers are doing their job and not trying to "work the system" for excessive compensation. The politicians need look for the real waste.

avenger0099 said on February 24, 2011 at 2:52 PM

What about the fact that they only pay a set utility cost around $150.00. I know the average monthly electrc bill is much more than that. Not to mention water, sewer, garbage, maintenance and repairs and on and on. I say you look a little deeper. Please dont be fooled park rangers are not "special" people that somehow deserve this.

pamby said on February 24, 2011 at 2:29 PM

This a non-issue. These people work hard. They work hard in the parks and for the people who come into the parks. They clean bathroms, fix trails and repair campsites. And that is just the tip of the iceburg. Rangers deserve housing. It should be inexpensive and I would rather see rangers in historic housing than it being rented out to people for a rowdy party and being ruined. There are cabins that can be rented out for other people with many different enviroments and sites for weddings..etc. Rangers have to clean this mess up. Even places that post pack it in and pack it out- a lot of times there are people who don't take their garbage with them. They have to pick up beer cans from practically everywhere. The most help they get are from the Boy Scouts and other types of volunteers. There is so much much more involved in a rangers job. And CA can go flush it. They make their Rangers pay and CA is still up sht creek.

idiotsavant said on February 24, 2011 at 2:20 PM

Lot's of jobs have perks. While the initial sticker shock seems excessive or like a waste if you will, I agree with dakotanative. Looking at the most sensational example of this situation doesn't represent the norm. Not every park even has a home, let alone one with a majestic view. Perhaps a second look is in order, but it has to be from a comprehensive perspective, not biased. We don't charge firefighters for lodging when they are at the station on duty. Perhaps someone should tell the Mayor or the Governor, seems like we are missing out on some untapped revenue there too. Glenn, Poulsbo

rfslaw57 said on February 24, 2011 at 2:16 PM

Have KING and FOX merged? This simply was not investigative reporting. Another cheap shot at state employees. Switching to KOMO.

bham44 said on February 24, 2011 at 1:59 PM

Really kimbeam? If you truly think the only thing St. Park Rangers do is pick up branches, you have clearly never been to a State Park - which is probably why your opinion on this matter is so biased. Park Rangers are expected to be available 24/7. Rangers are interrupted at all hours of the night due to camper complaints, people knocking on their doors etc. Rangers HOME phone numbers are posted throughout the park so that campers have the option of contacting them should any issues arise. Park Ranger starting salaries are under $35,000/year. In my opinion, they are extremely UNDERpaid for the amount of time/effort they put into the park. I would bet you wouldn't appreciate being interrupted at 2:00 AM every weekend to go deal with rowdy campers, would you? These employees are Rangers because they enjoy protecting our states beautiful parks and people. Not because they get a "free house". Housing comes at the cost of countless sleepless nights...

skippythedog said on February 24, 2011 at 1:36 PM

How about a report on people that suck up our welfare, flood our emergency rooms for routine care; or how much all the illegal immigrants that partake of all of this cost us? Takes a bit more work, research and imagination to do that huh, Susannah?

kimbeam said on February 24, 2011 at 1:31 PM

WOW 60 comments~~ must be all state employees ( not state workers ) more than likely state park ? and this hit there nerve of waste. Freebee housing is being exposed. Problem with KIng Investigators they do NOT go deep enough- there is lots more to this story. Maybe Kiro oir Komo could do better. We watch tubby guy made for TV picking up some branches and toss in a pile, more than likely the most work he has done in 36 years. Says million dollar property view, says loves the place, says works and plays here, says wouldnt do anything different -- give be a break. WHO WOULD Not ?? Park Rangers in Washington State are no different than California free housing except voters in CA. says pay there fair share of market value.. They can rent that house out and earn mucho money each month to help the Parks stay open. The Park Rangers will never complain, who would? they know no different why of doing business They have there unions and stay under the radar.. Thanks KIng 5.

bluesdudewa said on February 24, 2011 at 1:27 PM

Whistle5581 must be an intern at King5 or an idiot. Over 90% of the posts have been in favor of the park staff and their housing. This is a NON story.

dakotanative said on February 24, 2011 at 1:04 PM

At minimum wage, security would cost about $6100 for 24/7 coverage. So we are giving him a $1500 house for $6000 in services. The ranger is getting gyped, not the state.

whistle5581 said on February 24, 2011 at 12:51 PM

Good job Susannah. Lets learn our lessons from California and have those rangers and other staff pay fair market value for rent. Rangers I'm sure make a decent living and pay no rent, great deal for them, not for the tax payers that are paying those bills. I'm sure the housing is optional and no one is holding a gun to their heads ,making them have "free hosuing". Let's hope coversations begin to have this past history of the good old boys club change. Great reporting...I am a true King 5 viewer after this investigation, keep up the good work as we clean up government waste. Somebody has to watch the store.

mellybelly323 said on February 24, 2011 at 12:50 PM

This story is ridiculous. You chose to pick on the amazing people who make it their life's work to see that ourselves and our children have wonderful places to visit. Not to mention all the history they keep alive! LEAVE THE RANGERS ALONE! They have a thankless, selfless job. Who the hell cares if their housing is subsidized? THEY'VE EARNED THAT RIGHT - which is more than I can say for a large number of people sitting on welfare getting subsidized housing. Secondly, if you're going to make a point like "they're not paying enough for housing", then where are your facts to back that up? How much SHOULD they pay? How much more money would that bring in to the state/the parks department? Would it be worth the lost jobs? I would rather pay $5 or $10 dollars every time I go to a state park then drive these wonderful workers away be taking away one of the very few perks they have on the job.

liveinthegorge said on February 24, 2011 at 12:43 PM

Even if the State Parks were not broke like they are, I for one do not want to give a select group almost free housing while the maintance of the trails and parks is ignored. Most of the world pays for their personal housing and utilites. What these guys must have done to get these perks I wonder. I do not mind paying for keeping the parks clean, trails maintained and sick animals helped.... but come on..... these guys are privilaged to live in a breathtaking part of the world........ isn't that enough? Why do they need to freeload off the taxpayers also? If we had stopped the waste of taxpayer dollars long before now I wonder if the state would be in the mess it is now.

quackula said on February 24, 2011 at 12:40 PM

I can see this being an issue if the house was not already owned by the state, if say the state was renting out the home from a landlord then yes maybe, but since the state owns the home, really what are the costs?

les398 said on February 24, 2011 at 12:33 PM

in response to "yessir"...the Military is NOT receiving "free" housing......they pay for it just as anyone else does.....if a soldier and his/her family live off base then they would receive a stipend for off base housing....but while on base they do not receive this money....this is one of the benefits that the soldiers actually work for that is part of their pay if they are married or have dependents...next time you think any of a military persons benefits are free I invite you to the front line and see if you think it is earned or not....if you can read this....thank a teacher...if you can see it and respond in your own voice...THANK A VET

tman0175 said on February 24, 2011 at 12:21 PM

King5 needs to investigate it's investigators for wasting time and money on this story.

yessir said on February 24, 2011 at 12:19 PM

Another sensational article to cause a little stir in the "HATE THE STATE" bunch. Perhaps while we are at it we should deny housing to all Federal employees INCLUDING OUR MILITARY? What's good for the goose is good for the gander you libertarian-minded nutjobs.

tman0175 said on February 24, 2011 at 12:19 PM

(Agreed, non-story) The land is already owned by the state, the rent should cover utilities and maintenance of the house and that's it. I wouldn't even call it a perk, since the buildings are older and located in isolated locations. I'm sure it's pretty lonely in the off seasons for these rangers.

herbguy47 said on February 24, 2011 at 12:14 PM

You gotta be kidding me!!!! The fact that KING5 would even consider printing an article such as this is appalling! Washington State Park Rangers have maintained and protected our state's parks since they began with no or little thanks. They receive very low pay while putting themselves in harms way everyday. I spent 20 years as a Wa State Ranger and in that 20 years saw very very few pay increases. But that didn't stop the general public from coming to my residence almost on a nightly basis to complain of something, request assistance, ask questions, report an emergency, etc. The rangers of this state are, or have TRIED to be a proud bunch, working with almost nothing to keep our parks afloat. If someone wants to blame a group for something, blame our legislature who for many many years now have not supported parks in any way except for the occasional pat on the back. EVERYONE expects our parks to be clean, secure, safe, and well maintained but no one wants the responsibility for it.

summer5 said on February 24, 2011 at 12:09 PM

I hope these "perks" are being reported to the IRS !

nguminh said on February 24, 2011 at 12:05 PM

out of the whole state, I do agree most of these rangers do deserve of where they are. 90% of them love the outdoor and do their best to reserve the park. The only thing that I don't agree with Susannah is trying to compare WA vs CA. CA is a big mess. don't try to use CA system. We need to do of what make it works for us rather than try to copy a system that falling apart.

iampam said on February 24, 2011 at 11:50 AM

Forgot to post the rest: 2nd, the housing you described is not typical of the system. At many parks, the housing is a mobile home or very modest house. Our first place was a single wide mobile home built in the 70s. It stood on cinder blocks and we had constant problems with mice and ants and the roof was about to cave in. 3rd, I am not sure where the number $48/month came from, perhaps that was per paycheck? The cheapest rates any rangers are paying is around $100/month, and that's for less than 1000 sq feet. 4th, Park Rangers are fully commissioned law enforcement officers. Many could lateral to a police agency and get a big raise. Having cheap housing is a huge job perk that makes it affordable to choose Rangering as a career. 5th, many of the nicer park houses are historic buildings. Having someone living in them helps preserve them. 6th, keep in mind that nearly all state parks are in remote areas where fair market value for housing is MUCH less than Seattle area.

bam206 said on February 24, 2011 at 11:49 AM

I agree with everyone, this story is a non story, and I would like to thank the park rangers for all there dedication to our parks. King 5 & Susannah you should be ashamed!

jcharwood said on February 24, 2011 at 11:37 AM

They are not buying these properties. Someday they will need to have their own place to live. They should be using the money they are not paying in rent for purchasing a home off-site, or building a fund to do this. And the state should be paying them a fair wage to make this possible. They will not be state employees forever. Work for an agency for 37 years, live in the house for 13 -- this ranger must be near retirement. I hope he has had the means to purchase a place of his own. These are hard-working, dedicated employees who deserve to have a fair salary, good benefits, and a reasonable retirement. To only look at the state park budget and their rent and pass judgement is cruel and unfair.

robinshoods said on February 24, 2011 at 11:29 AM

Instead you should have been complementing them for their dedication

robinshoods said on February 24, 2011 at 11:27 AM

.I feel that you are so wrong with the angle that you took on this story, most of these people are on call 24 hours a day. Would you rather pay for 24 hours a day work or provide for the subsidized housing which keeps the employees on site.

bill27 said on February 24, 2011 at 11:11 AM

Hell, I think we're getting a bargain. I'm thankful the state is not talking about closing these parks down. Susannah, our governor and legislature are doing enough to make us like California without any help from you. How about doing some actual investigative reporting, you know, where you look at all the information from all sides. KOMO, here I come.

catsbow52 said on February 24, 2011 at 11:10 AM

If they are on duty 24/7, they deserve this benefit. If they clock out after 8 hrs. they should pay fair market.

grover_dill said on February 24, 2011 at 11:09 AM

Thus far over 40 comments about this “story” and all of them disagree with the writer’s assertion that this practice is a problem. Hey Susannah, how many people did you have to talk to before you finally found someone (Paul Guppy) who sided with your opinion that this is even an issue? Boy, talk about trying to make the “facts’ fit your pre-conceived notions. This makes me doubt some of the other conclusions that have come out of your investigative stories.

lin1945 said on February 24, 2011 at 10:49 AM

This time I am not applauding KING5. These rangers have regular work hours but being on-site the state receives a lot of free hours and there is a presence at the park 24/7. This story is one BIG miss. It was not handled well and certainly won't get the respect the story on the ferries garnered. KING5 is slipping. Time to consider KOMO and KIRO.

twoods425 said on February 24, 2011 at 10:32 AM

Shame on King 5. Now trying to pick on the state park rangers. These people work to help up keep our parks and serve the public and they get this wonderful perk of being able to stay at the park. Every job has perks and I think this is a wonderful one and i'm sure not all the house are all that great.

plutonomics said on February 24, 2011 at 10:25 AM

I really don't see the big deal. I would imagine rangers don't get paid all that much. I consider it a job perk. No different than a CEO getting a 500 million bonus. It's a perk.

wrestlersmom2 said on February 24, 2011 at 10:02 AM

As A Wife of A Ranger who has given the state over 26 years of service I can tell you living in the Parks At any cost was not worth it to us. The late night calls, people at the door ( at all hours) and what about the man who came after my husband, then his whole family because he was doing his job.. keeping the public safe! So if anyone is thinking Rangers have it so good , think again. They are under paid , over worked and the first to be pushed under the bus... Maybe they should get the whole picture before they try to make it look like Rangers have it so good.

lfpmom said on February 24, 2011 at 9:44 AM

I have turned to King5 as a trusted news source since I moved to Seattle 35 years ago. Due Susanna Frame's "Waste" on the Water series and now this unfairly slanted story, I am beginning to question whether or not I can continue to trust my old friend. These rangers have to live at their place of work and are on duty 24/7. A place to live is fair compensation for living at work. As for the ferry engineers receiving travel pay - most of them choose their jobs on a boat close to their homes; then the boat gets put on a run further away; a few years later the boat gets put on still another run. Travel pay is a fair way to compensate them for moving their place of employment. Susanna needs to report on ALL of the facts, not just the ones that will get her an award at the expense of public employees who are just trying to make a living like the rest of us. Hard working and honest park rangers and ferry engineers have nothing to feel guilty about!

nwgal said on February 24, 2011 at 9:39 AM

What an example of lazy reporting. Frame picks what is likely the nicest house in the entire system, and barely mentions the RV hookups, mobile homes and run-down buildings that make up a lot of state park housing. (I've been to a lot of state parks. I've noticed some of what passes for housing. I wouldn't live in most of them.) She offers no analysis of the problem. She doesn't look at how you establish fair market rental value of a home where the renter is expected to be available to the public 24/7. She doesn't consider the cost of potential damage to any park if rangers opted to not live in some of the houses once rents were raised. She doesn't even try to guess how much money is involved in her manufactured "scandal." And then, does she go to a property expert for comment? No. Does she go to another state official where they are trying to rent their housing for a coment on how that's working? No. She goes to a perennial government critic who -surprise!- criticizes government.

jccblvu said on February 24, 2011 at 9:29 AM

Oh SUSANNAH! Big miss on this one. What a waste of time reading this story. I bet your employer gives you that "yellow jacket" you wear. Some things just make sense... this is one of them. The rangers are on site 24 x 7 ---- what are you missing? Sensationalizing again.... it's just wrong on your part.

snakepliskin said on February 24, 2011 at 9:22 AM

Sussannah, how much does Gregoire pay for rent on the governors mansion? What is the per diem pay for legislators? Lets start here before you go after the hardworking people who just happen to work for the state. There are many ways the state is bleeding money, but having a person living in these houses while doing their jobs isn't one of them.

baileykristan528 said on February 24, 2011 at 9:20 AM

My family just returned from Fort Flagler we stay from the 19-22 it was a blast. the rangers are helpful, when you can find them.

gladimoved said on February 24, 2011 at 9:20 AM

Hey, Susannah, did you write the headline? Says "Broke Park..." My grammar teacher just flipped in her grave.......shouldn't it read "Broken?" Why is it every state want to be like California. I think not like California is probably the best idea.

grappler1 said on February 24, 2011 at 9:17 AM

Truly a sad commentary on the quest for ratings through this particular "scandal" that King5 is reporting on. Mike Zimmerman was a credit to park rangers in our state: reasonable, grateful, dedicated, obviously hard working. Here the poor guy is being "exposed" by Ms. Frame and he honestly and graciously answers her questions. Someone approved Ms. Frame spending time on this "story". This person should get some coaching about what makes a real story. Ray H., I know you are a decent guy; Is this the legacy of journalism you want to leave for your tenure at the station? Probably not.

aziza said on February 24, 2011 at 9:16 AM

goldiemae? Couldn't have said it better myself. I say... SO WHAT!? Look at what these people give up? They don't get to own their homes or equity, or get the tax write off for federal taxes. They are on call 24/7 AND because they are on site, they keep vandalism from going on on a grand scale OR keep people from using our parks as dump sites and meth labs! All this nickel and dime "waste" stories would be better served if we took a look at REAL issues such as solutions to get jobs and pay for services such as education, fire, police and medical!

goldiemae said on February 24, 2011 at 9:02 AM

PS-I think King5's "Waste on the Water" series went to their heads!

goldiemae said on February 24, 2011 at 9:00 AM

So, Paul Guppy, I guess you think that having a Ranger on-site 24/7, responding to disturbances, providing security has zero value and therefore these folks should pay rent for the privilege of answering their door in the middle of the night. What nonsense. These folks give more of their time than what their paycheck covers, leave this perk alone. (I'm willing to bet it would cost a lot more than any rent you would charge these folks to hire security staff to patrol the park. How's that for conservative?)

tman0175 said on February 24, 2011 at 8:51 AM

Sorry, but this is one perk the government should maintain. As long as the rent covers utilities and maintenance on the buildings that is enough. The state owns the land already, no reason to charge anything beyond those costs. It should be part of the job.

dhm1956 said on February 24, 2011 at 8:50 AM

Don't forget the Governor also lives in state housing... What is she paying?? There's also Fish & Wildlife Employees and perhaps DNR employees who also live in state housing. The State University presidents also live in state housing. You might check out TESC's president. Not only does he have a state house on campus to live in, TESC is paying to rent/purchase a house off campus.... now that's government waste!

susie2lips said on February 24, 2011 at 8:49 AM

It does my heart good to see the common sense of the people has risen above and recognized the nonsense of this "non-story." Park Rangers do not get to live in the Park for free; the "rent" they are not technically submitting via personal check each month is a very modest portion of the salary they earn for working 24 hours a day, seven days a week to ensure users of each State Park are safe, our public resources are secure, and the grounds are kept pristine. Can you imagine what it would actually cost to hire someone to perform these duties for this amount of time - ??!! I can assure you it would be much more than the monthly fair market value of any of these homes. Thank You, Rangers, for sacrificing your personal time and privacy to take care of our Parks.

tugthug said on February 24, 2011 at 8:36 AM

Get a grip King5. I see no problem here with the Rangers getting a well deserved perk. Their on duty 24/7 and provide security for the park in which most of us enjoy using and they also provide a valuable service to the public. Want a hot story start looking at the City of Seattle employee's driving city vehicles home at night. Wonder how much money we could save there. Sorry, I forgot they consider that serving the public with a faster response time in case of an emergency. Sure wish I could do that and not have to pay $3.50 a gallon for gas to go to and from work!

davebrownspoint said on February 24, 2011 at 8:33 AM

So if they actually pay rent, why does the headline say "free housing"? Extremely weak article, twisted logic. Even if you "fixed" the inequity, the state would maybe have another 50-100K a year, which is peanuts in the overall picture.

bluesdudewa said on February 24, 2011 at 8:24 AM

Hey Susannah, find a real stoiry to report. I am getting sick and tired of these so called public employee "Scandals" your station sensationalizes for the sake of ratings. Most of tyhem are BS. I agree with the posters that the park employees are bascially on call 24/7 and I appreciate having them there.

iampam said on February 24, 2011 at 8:17 AM

Interesting article, but doesn't really give the whole picture. First of all, no one is getting FREE housing. As the article points out, everyone is paying something in rent every month. Yes, this is a very cheap rent, but it comes at a price. I've lived in park housing at several different parks, and it certainly has its tradeoffs. First, the privacy issue. When most people go home at night, they have a reasonable expectation of privacy and that they are done working for the day. People generally don't knock on their door at all hours unless it's an emergency, and if there are problems, they get to call the cops to deal with it. In most parks, people do knock on your door at all hours of the day and night, usually for stupid reasons. They also peer in your windows which is creepy, but sometimes they don't know what the building is and are confused. Your neighbors are often campers. If they are being obnoxious, you have to go back to work to deal with it. Continued...

bufford said on February 24, 2011 at 8:15 AM

Both sides of this debate need more info. What is not mentioned is what the budget is for the parks and what part of it goes to the employees. Some have posted the ranger's wages, but as we've seen over the last couple of weeks, that may be the small part of this iceberg. On the surface, it certainly looks logical to provide a housing perk for the many stated benefits an onsite ranger can and does provide. It also could attract and keep qualified people in these positions. The decision to be made is do we, or can we, pay for this in the park budget. If the decision is we need it, then fund it, but keep everything in the open. There may be other things that need to go in order to keep this in place. The State budget has huge gaps and I agree that nothing should be off the table when considering savings. It also appears that here may be some recieving this perk that don't fit the criteria and that may be a good place to start saving.

genagee said on February 24, 2011 at 7:43 AM

Of all they different ways that we can deter government waster THIS is a what you want to focus on? Those people provide a service by living there. They have almost no privacy and they are a living breathing 24/7 customer service representative for the State Parks system. If your going to charge these workers more rent for where they live, then you should probably start charging a lease fee to the police officers that drive their cars home from work. And honestly, what kind of a dent in the budget could this rent make? I have always seen that these houses look very well-kept and in great repair. Stop being a hater and let things well enough alone. Shame on you for spreading this "non-story". Those employees give back something that most employers wish they could garner from their employees- pride and loyalty. Have we forgotten the Golden Rule? Next your going to want to charge the park squirrels for their nuts.

stryker said on February 24, 2011 at 7:41 AM

"The park service says having rangers like Zimmerman living where they work is an inexpensive way to provide security and service 24-7." I CAMP REGULALRLY, I PREFER HAVING THEM THERE 24X7. I have seen them handle unruley people that would rather ruine it for everyone else. I bought the day passes for the state parks before and I'll support it again to keep them open. You also have to pay for dumping, launching and other services. That stuff aint free now as it is.

sensibleguy said on February 24, 2011 at 7:22 AM

This is a non-story. Rangers have a 24x7 job and the pay does not reflect that. This "perk" seems to be saving the tax payers money. Many state parks offer a free campsite for people to act as a park host. Duties include taking care of everything including picking up trash. MUCH cheaper than having to hire multiple shifts of people to come in and take care of park guests. This is NOT the state ferry system.

iceworker08 said on February 24, 2011 at 6:49 AM

jhbronson said on February 24, 2011 at 12:12 AMA Park Ranger 1 makes $5010/mo Not sure where this person got their information but I just looked it up. Park ranger 1 for the state of Washington has a range of $34,260 to $44,712 per year. Park ranger 2 $38,556 to $50,668 Park ranger 3 $45,828 to $60,120 yearly And if they get the top ranger position then they can make $45,828 to $60,120 yearly and this is for top level management of the state parks. So if you do the math you can see that a park ranger that has to have a BA is not making big bucks until they promote up the ranks.

glock2117 said on February 24, 2011 at 6:27 AM

I work for a private camp and i get free rent and utilities but i also barley make minimum wage in pay so unless these rangers are making like 400000 a year this is not a big deal

thomas1986 said on February 24, 2011 at 6:01 AM

Ridiculous story! Park rangers provide a valuable service for very little compensation. How would you like to be on duty 24 hours/day? Sure the rents are cheap so maybe a modest adjustment due. Firefighters work 24 hour shifts, maybe they should also pay for their "stay" at the firehouse. Geez...are you kidding me?! Find something better to pick on King 5.

godivademaus said on February 24, 2011 at 4:05 AM

What the article does NOT say is whether these employees are paying taxes on the difference between fair market rent and the amount of rent actually paid (which is an IRS rule). IF they are paying taxes on these perks, then I am all for it, the government gets some income from the taxes paid on the perk, and these employees get a nice benefit for the work they do.

drmike said on February 24, 2011 at 1:46 AM

It's nice to see the posters here sticking up for the park employees. I've always found the rangers and other staff to be very courteous and helpful, even after- hours. These folks are very dedicated to the parks and to helping the public enjoy them. If we had to pay for nighttime staffing it would be much more expensive than the market values of these rents. No doubt we'd be paying for much more vandalism if these folks weren't there. If this is worth "vitually ... nothing" then perhaps our friends at the Washington Policy Center would have no problem volunteering their nights and weekends to help out at the parks!

notyrants said on February 24, 2011 at 1:43 AM

This story was offensive on many fronts. The emphasis was bias toward scandal and not the sacrifice of the people in these positions. The public can come to the door of these homes at any hour. There was negligence to report the annual compensation of these state workers. Public workers are for ever under scrutiny with media hype that the taxpayer is paying for them but barely is it referenced the rising burden the private corporate governments place on the taxpayer when these increasingly unaccountable behemoths drive up insurance costs, fuel costs, food costs and the cost of propaganda when the privatized media hits society with this trash. So the solution to the state parks 64 million dollar budget crunch is to have these workers work for the company store? Or is it to handover the parks to the burgeoning monarchies who work to alienate citizens from their government paving the way for private corporate government hostile takeover and oligarchic control. Teddy Roosevelt got it.

loviane564016984 said on February 24, 2011 at 1:38 AM

While modestly adjusting rentals for the units might be reasonable in some cases, isn't having the rangers and other state employees available around the clock in our parks and recreation areas is already a bargain for the state? Would KING5 or others rather pay a privatized security force more money in order to protect the state lands during off hours? How would they ensure that visitors using the campgrounds have some protection at night? How would they protect flora, fauna, structures and facilities around the clock? Who would respond to natural or man-made emergencies and what would it cost? This contrived story offers no options for better care of the parks and the people who use them. There are no proposals for economically reimbursing the services of the people who protect the parks while they are off duty. There is no proposal that would continue to assure the safety of park and recreation area users if there were no state employees to turn to.

jhbronson said on February 24, 2011 at 1:12 AM

A Park Ranger 1 makes $5010/mo. That is one of the highest pay scales for park rangers. They are required to have at least a B.A. degree. Generously figuring time off, If they live on site they are on duty 24/7 at least 26 days a month which makes their pay $8.03 an hour. Seems to me that giving free housing is not a bad deal in exchange for that type of pay scale and expertise. Even figuring $1500/mo for rent, they would still be making only $10.43 an hour. How many of us would work those hours for that price? A DOT road grader just went by my house. It is after midnight, cold and snowing outside. Not many of us would like to get a shovel and do that job ourselves, but we certainly want roads cleared for work tomorrow. I think the attacks being made against public servants in this country are an outrage and honesty would require reporters to do some math before commenting.

motab said on February 24, 2011 at 1:09 AM

Hey Susannah, I have a hot tip for you for your next hard-hitting exposé of government waste: I have it on good word that State Patrol Troopers get a uniform allowance, PLUS the use of a patrol car while on duty. They don't use their own cars! Nor pay for the gas they use! Wow!! That's another hot story for you to investigate.

mrsdrake said on February 24, 2011 at 12:48 AM

You've got to be kidding me--park workers getting free or reduced-price housing... has anybody looked at what they get paid recently? It's not much. I agree with the other comments--having a presence on the ground is invaluable, and the benefits far outweigh any funding that might be lost to subsidized housing. It's all part of the job, and I have no problem with my tax dollars going to fund something worthwhile like this.

dianashelby said on February 24, 2011 at 12:42 AM

This is a non-story. Have you ever heard of caretakers - they live on-site, rent free. Find a real issue to investigate.

helga said on February 24, 2011 at 12:42 AM

Dear people, can you stop picking at nits? Do they get paid for being on call 24/7? Charging state park rangers more for their housing is not going to solve the state budget crisis. It's in the billions. Can you count that many zeros? This is akin to digging in the couch cushions for loose change and thinking you'll find enough to buy food for the month.

motab said on February 24, 2011 at 12:36 AM

What a lame "non-story". This is like doing a exposé of the Army because they don't change soldiers to live in the barracks, give them free health care, and provide them with free clothing and food. It's part of the job. I grew up in the mountains of Northern California and the rangers always were provided with housing. I have friends who are managers of an apartment building and they get free rent in addition to a small salary. A friend works for the DOD teaching school to military family kids living on foreign bases, and she gets a living allowance plus two paid trips to the States a year. Call it perks or benefits, it all part of the job. This whole story is a non-issue.

carolhearn said on February 24, 2011 at 12:31 AM

This "expose" is a bit of a reach. There are numerous occupations where free or low-cost housing is part of compensation - ministers, apartment managers, etc. Where is the "aha" moment in that? I did not hear ANY information in your report about the pay level of the state employees who pay low rent for (mostly) modest dwelling units. And once again, you are concentrating on pennies rather than looking at substantial money-wasters. If all the 200 (wow - what a huge number) of reduced rent dwellings you highlighted were instead rented at market rate, how much would that amount to in a year's time? If the total were $100,000 a year, I'd be surprised. Would there even be people interested in renting these dwellings in remote areas at any price? Why not do some real investigative reporting?

jfieser said on February 24, 2011 at 12:23 AM

I agree with Collegeguy. It is invaluable to have a presence on site at all times. Could the rent be more, sure, but I am fine if it is still at a deep discount.

collegeguy said on February 24, 2011 at 12:06 AM

Honestly, while there is the budget issue, I don't have much problem with these rangers and what not getting cheap rent at these parks since they do have to answer to the public even when not officially on the clock. They do deserve to get some benefit for the service they provide. Could they pay more than they do thought, probably but it should still be discounted.