California State Park Closures

[ETAV8R]

While I will not argue against many politicians being boneheads, the core of the problem (this time) is this thing called the economy. You may have heard that the economy tanked recently. State revenues are way down, so cuts must be made. Voters declined to explicitly fund the parks, so the parks go on the chopping block like many other items.

There are many variables here. If parks are viable options to for the chopping block then so are schools, pensions, and wages for state employees. I have a teenage daughter so I do care about public education. I also have friends who work in the public sector and they are doing far better than I am in the private sector. Revenue and business tax payments are down for respective reasons. Most companies don't even want to be here in CA so there is less tax revenue from business. I'm a CA native and the state of our State saddens me.

When parks are closed and unused they are not maintained anymore. If and when they reopen the cost to get them back up to speed will be substantial.

 

[66LV]

The parks are closing simply because the public wants them closed. The proposition to fund state parks did not pass. This is a reality check for voters to decide if they want state parks are not. The public did not think this would happen or do not care. The parks need their own funding source so this does not happen. I hope this wakes voters up enough to realize if you want to keep the finest park system in the world operating go vote to keep it open.

 

[thebrassnuckles]

so... whats gonna keep people from using these parks?

 

[ETAV8R]

The parks are closing simply because the public wants them closed.

Unfortunately it isn't that simple. The proposition was voted down. Doesn't mean people want parks closed, it means the populace did not like the prop and/or the way it was written. Who is to say that had the proposition passed the parks would have had enough funding to stay open. The state of California is in dire straits financially. We cannot afford the current situation nor the future debt.

 

[Ed Bravo]

State Parks

I was at one of the state parks on the closing list yesterday. This park, Providence Mountains State Recreation Area/Mitchell Caverns is in the Mojave Desert, completely surrounded by the federal "Mojave National Preserve."

It actually has been closed this entire year - for needed maintenance. To see it yesterday after 5 months of neglect was sad indeed. The cost of reopening this and the other parks will be astronomical. Theft and vandalism will be yet another issue that will cost taxpayers untold bucks.

I wonder what percent of the the voters that voted "NO" on funding choices are state park users?

Ed

 

[Patman]

The issue with the prop, was that it would have added $18 per vehicle registered in the state, with no consideration for what or who. Admittedly it would have made it cheaper for those of us who use the parks on a regular basis, but its not right for people to have to pay for something they don't use. I think (IMHO) that a combination of the "park tax" and a use fee would have been much more palatable to the average citizen.

It all comes down to financial mismanagement, and poor business practices (if the parks were run as a business it MAY not have gotten to this point, although it may have been worse).

Last season a year park season pass was $50. This season...$125 Yet the daily use fee's didn't go up? In today's economy, does that make sense? Raising a fee by 150% in one shot is a guaranteed way to get your customers to look elsewhere. Just because they (the state) have a monopoly on state parks, doesn't mean they don't have to use their brains. The average park user will pay $10 a visit without hesitation, and go 20 times in a year. But won't shell out $125 for a year pass. Financially doesn't make sense, but that's how the average person works, weather we want to admit it or not.

Not to get too political, but even in today's economy, we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. There are thousands of places they can cut costs before the parks, but it won't happen. Either by the legislature, or voting populous. The sad truth is that parks are a great resource enjoyed by a small percentage of the population, expecting the majority to give up their Starbucks and McD's for 2 days to pay for a year of it is unrealistic.

 

[66LV]

You never hear that CHP or Cal Trans. are having funding issues because they are not funded out of the general fund and have a dedicated funding source. Imagine if interstate 5 closed down because the legislature decided not to fund its maintenance. At some point we figured out it would be a really bad idea to have crappy lawless Highways and needed to take the Dept. of Transportation out of the general fund. Same goes for parks, find a funding source that the legislature can’t play with.

 

[4x4x4doors]

Same goes for parks, find a funding source that the legislature can’t play with.

I'm not there but I read. Hasn't CA set up a separate OHV fund "that the legislature can't play with" which has been raided to make up shortages in the general fund? Hasn't the state been taken to court for that very reason?

BTW, CA does not have a monopoly on that practice. The Peoples Republik of MaryLand has raided the "Transportation Trust Fund" on a regular basis and the legislature is discussing hikes in registrations and gas taxes because there is not enough money in the Transportation Trust Fund to pay for transportation needs! :Wow1:

 

[66LV]

My point is that I don’t think Californians realized that true closures would actually happen or what affect this has long term for parks. Cal. State parks are second only to the public school system in providing education programs for their children. Imagine what the California Coast would look like if it was not for state parks. You don’t have to visit a state park for it to enhance your quality of life, just drive highway one. Now imagine that beach or view fenced off replaced by a hotel or condo.

 

[thebrassnuckles]

I voted no on thepark tax.

I use state parks, but I dont think that my neighbors should be forced to pay to keep them open if they dont.

 

[haven]

When the CA legislature considered closing state parks in 2009, the federal government reminded them that the land used to create several popular parks came from the feds, usually from decommissioned military facilities. Part of the deal was that the state would keep the land available to the people. If these parks were to be closed, the feds could take the land back.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/01/feds-threaten-seize-california-parks-closed-budget/

http://www.mercurynews.com/california-budget/ci_18156854

 

[ThomD]

I voted no on thepark tax.

I use state parks, but I dont think that my neighbors should be forced to pay to keep them open if they dont.

Too late - they have always paid for your park access. Park entrance fees statewide cover about 30% of the operating cost.

 

[ThomD]

When the CA legislature considered closing state parks in 2009, the federal government reminded them that the land used to create several popular parks came from the feds, usually from decommissioned military facilities. Part of the deal was that the state would keep the land available to the people. If these parks were to be closed, the feds could take the land back.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/01/feds-threaten-seize-california-parks-closed-budget/

http://www.mercurynews.com/california-budget/ci_18156854

This year's list is much shorter than the 2009 list, so none of the former-Federal lands are on the list.

 

[ThomD]

Not to get too political, but even in today's economy, we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.

This is simply not true. State tax revenues are down. Cuts have to be made. Parks are popular in this crowd, but I could easily find other people with different sacred cows.

State Revenue by FY.

2007 - $102B
2008 - $83B
2009 - $87B (est)
2010 - $94B (est)

Source: CA Legislative Analyst's Office

 

[Patman]

This is simply not true. State tax revenues are down. Cuts have to be made. Parks are popular in this crowd, but I could easily find other people with different sacred cows.

State Revenue by FY.

2007 - $102B
2008 - $83B
2009 - $87B (est)
2010 - $94B (est)

Source: CA Legislative Analyst's Office

I never meant to suggest that revenues were not down, only that even before the "crash" the state was unable to contol its spending on trivial entitlements, and such. They (the state govn) are jumping to cut basics before "luxuries" as always. Just clarifying my point and not looking to draw the thread in a diffferent direction.

Are any of the parks slated for closure on land that the state was "given" by the feds? It would be interesting to see the Fed reaction to the closure this time around.