Opinion: Needing to find another plan for state parks
Publisher’s note: This editorial is from the Nov. 7, 2010, Sacramento Bee.
What next for California’s struggling state parks system?
Fifty-eight percent of California voters Tuesday roundly rejected an initiative asking residents to pay an $18 surcharge on their cars each year in exchange for free access to state parks.
Incoming Gov. Jerry Brown and lawmakers should not take Tuesday’s vote as a statement on the value Californians place on their state parks. From redwoods to sea coast to mountains to historic sites, state parks draw 80 million visitors each year.
Yet state budget problems remain and Californians still feeling the bite of the economic downturn have signaled that they don’t want new fees. What’s needed now is bold vision by Brown and the Legislature, and a variety of old and new strategies. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s repeated threat to eliminate all general fund support for state parks is a non-starter.
Some have suggested raising park entrance fees to offset general fund cuts. This was tried four times in the past decade, and attendance declined. Caution should prevail. We don’t want to price people out of their state parks.
I wonder how many parks in the basin will close now with the funding cuts…
I can’t believe Californians couldn’t pay $18 dollars a year for their State Parks!! That $18 included FREE admission!! California is a state full of losers!!! Come on Meg Whitman, throw $100 million at our Parks!
Parks that they talked of closing before are at least Emerald Bay, Bliss, Grover Hot Springs. Our tourism would drop for that reason alone. Closed parks will still get used only now in an unmonitored way; damage to parks could be massive. Closed parks can be taken back by Federal Government too. I agree $18 a bargain! New Governor could make a difference.
I don’t think a different governor would have made any difference at all on that vote. It was an initiative that the people got to vote on. I don’t understand why it didn’t pass either, but I have to assume that it was mostly poorer urban people who don’t go to our parks anyway that voted against it. I had mixed feelings, due to my basic mistrust of how the government plays with its budget, but I voted for it anyway, and I expected it to pass. Oh well.
I can’t believe all the people that buy into the CA Government’s scare tactics! The State says they need to close things that are very popular (State Parks) unless the State gets more money. Well first of all, closing the Parks doesn’t save much money!
But secondly, when 1 in 8! State Employees makes over 100k a year, plus benefits! (You read that right, and it’s a factually statement!), when it’s discovered that the State has the same number of employees that it did before the economic crash, plus the fact that people are already paying high fees and taxes (including a jacked up car registration fee) maybe the people of CA are smart and realize we don’t need any more fees!
Oh, and the argument that the money would go directly to the State Parks? Well the new money would’ve freed up current State Park money for other General Fund purposes. The people of CA were wise in the vote as the State doesn’t need more revenue sources. It needs to confront the bloated size of its Government!
California’s devious legislators asked themselves, If California’s voters are naive enough to write a separate check for a service (state parks) we’re already funding, why should we continue to fund them? We could take all the state park money and direct it instead to our bloated salaries, pensions, perks, and other worthless programs.
Fortunately, California voters weren’t quite that easily tricked.
Next election, let’s vote on their perks, pensions, benefits, and salaries instead. That should send them running.
Steven its not a deal when you have a fleet of vehicles
Robert, if you have a fleet of vehicles you can afford the bottom line, CPA’s know how get around this expense. If they really wanted to Aid Parks they could create an ear mark proportions prop, pass with no one’s vote. City people don’t need this, but Resort, Nature Worshippers, it been a Great Deal.
I’ve noticed we need more handicap paths in the Tahoe basin, I’ve seen many trails in other states parks manufacture really nice trails for both hikers ,handicap alike, out woodchips, this available in great quantities in the entire basin.” Built both with loge pole and 2×6 boards, with the basic holes drilled, with rebar anchors’.
It sickens me to see these people struggle at our local parks, outdoor facilities with the money this country, state ,cities, hordes for other unimportant purposes .