A PDF from California Department of Parks and Recreation outlines why the parks in question were targeted and points out a few telling details, such as:
- Elimination of public access at the 48 parks will result in a revenue loss of approximately $3.7 million to the State Parks and Recreation Fund (SPRF).
- The $13.3 million reduction and the $3.7 million loss in SPRF revenue, would result in a projected total reduction of $17.0 million in funding for the operation and maintenance of the state park system.
- State Parks has more than 75 million visitors every year. These park closures are projected to reduce the annual visitation by about 6.5 million visitors or less than 10% of our total attendance, meaning most of the system, 230 of the 278 state parks, will remain open and operational.
- In the 1980s, State Parks began deferring maintenance to the system, such things as repairing roofs, bathrooms, roads, fences and trails. Since then, deferred maintenance has continued to grow due to the continued under-funding of the State Parks’ maintenance budget. Today, the deferred maintenance backlog for the system stands are just over $1.2 billion. The annual shortfall in on-going maintenance is $117 million.
- In 1990-91 the state spent $4.16 per visitor to state parks. That figure has continued to drop ever since, with this latest 08-09 budget reduction proposal bringing that figure to roughly $2.80/visitor (in inflation-adjusted 2006-07 dollars).
- Raising fees can produce more revenue, but it also gets to a point of diminishing returns where people stop coming to the system and attendance drops, and revenue along with it. We are near that point today.
So, closing these parks does make it easier to keep the rest open — this is actually a plausible rationale. The billion dollars in deferred maintenance is not pretty, either.
But all this assumes new revenue sources aren’t available. They can be, but not if we assume raising money to support the parks is solely the state’s job.
I happen to feel that since state parks are public lands, it’s the public’s responsibility–all of our’s–to pay our fair share to support them. Once they become unused public lands, they start to look like surplus public lands to a certain class of politicians, and it won’t take that much political maneuvering to make them available to some kind of revenue-enhancing development.
I my mind, public parks cannot ever be defined as boondoggles, or inappropriate expenditures of tax money, as long as they are truly public parks. By truly public parks, I mean those that any member of the public can explore and enjoy, assuming that they choose an appropriate mode of travel that preserves the qualities that park was set aside to preserve.
It’s bogus to calculate a park’s cost or value on a cost-per-visitor basis. That’s private-industry type thinking. Just because someone doesn’t use a park, doesn’t mean they aren’t benefitting from it. Many of the benefits are not easily quantified, but they clearly exist. But to look at it another way, if I never need the services of my neighborhood fire department, or never use the road into some nearby industrial park, does that mean I shouldn’t be taxed for those services either?
The parks have always relied on a certain amount of philanthropy, granted. And there’s certainly a need for that now. But those who would privatize public lands state openly in their platforms that their first step is to starve government services in order to prove that these places CAN exist without tax money. I have no doubt that a few very popular places will remain viable strictly on volunteer work and public philanthropy. But like a lot of things in civil society, those who need these things the most are the least able to provide them for themselves.
A certain amount of commons and public shared ownership is what makes a civilization in my opinion. When all public property and services become privatized, then what you have amounts to feudalism. The only difference in our case is that the warlords are corporate CEOs and boards of directors, rather than a family line of aristocrats. I guess you could say that feudalism is a form of civilization, but not one I’d like to live in.
(I wasn’t sure which of your California parks posts should carry this rant, but I decided this one was most on-topic.)
Well, Steve, maybe you’ll be able to see Henry Coe from the moral high ground. But you won’t be able to go in after it’s been shut down.
There’s plenty of other parks to day hike in; there’s only one that allows wild-camping with no reservations. You’re the backpacker, are you OK with that?
What I’m looking for is 80 percent of something vs. 100 percent of nothing.
My 2 cents:
We have a system of society that means we elect officials to guide our public trusts. The State Park system is one line item on the plate of services that the citizens decided is good for the public. The way we play the game is to have the representatives manage for the public good. OK, so that means the way to get funding for the needed parks is thru our government representatives. When the governor proposes closing parks, our reps have the dutry to hear from us and act on it. Thus the letter/email/phone campaign is useful. Having car washes, cookie sales and magazine subscription drives to send money to keep the parks open ain’t the way. Excuse the term “peeing in the wind.”
I see no reason to close them in light of the pubic’s need. Just because the world’s 8th largest economy can’t manage expenses to income across the board is no reason to target the parks. Tax dollars are payng for 50% of the bill for live births in LA County to non-citizens. We fund a light rail system that no one uses. And they close Henry Coe to cover that – BS! Just because our Sacramento leadrship can’t manage their budget is no reason to take it out on hikers. What – 60% of us are overweight or mobidly obese? Adolescents have lean strong fingers thanks to video game expertise, but CA kids can’t pass the national fitness test. Parks provide a solution. And campaigns to get our representatives off their butts and fight back for us is the way it’s played – not by passing the hat on the trail. I have no problem with user fees, but to roll over and not try to keep the parks open is absurd. Hikers who do not let their reps know how they feel (pro or con) are “posers.” Live for something or die for nothing (John Rambo).
Rick D
http://www.hikehalfdome.com
So I guess the schools are just letting the politicos off the hook if they have bake sales and rally volunteers.
I don’t know if this was brought up on another thread but when you close the park you will have mucho marijuana growers in there in a few weeks. Volunteers get stuck cleaning up their mess when they are busted. Coe has had this problem.
The public must be let in to patrol the parks and keep the trails open for the future. There is no other choice unless they hire a lot more rangers.
We can’t get more volunteers for Coe. Coe uses lots of volunteers. Not only at the visitor center but to keep the springs maintained, for trail work, and volunteer ranger patrols. I’m having a hard time understanding what is so expensive about keeping the park open. The costs I see are mostly fixed. Maybe just close the toilets and campground.
– jim
With every state budget crisis the parks loose more funding and little of it is restored when revenue picks up. Some other group grabs the money. Time for a political fight to the death.
I would prefer they discontinue the “welfare” programs for many (not all) of the state residents. That would make more sense. Closing the parks is going to simply mean loss of income for the state. Welfare recipiants don’t really add any value to the state, either way.
Heaven forbid they raise taxes.