{"id":1940,"date":"2008-05-26T07:45:31","date_gmt":"2008-05-26T15:45:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.tommangan.net\/twoheeldrive\/?p=1940"},"modified":"2008-05-26T08:00:26","modified_gmt":"2008-05-26T16:00:26","slug":"parks-in-peril-part-2-raising-more-money","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.tommangan.net\/twoheeldrive\/index.php\/2008\/05\/26\/parks-in-peril-part-2-raising-more-money\/","title":{"rendered":"Parks in Peril Part 2: raising more money"},"content":{"rendered":"

California’s state parks need a lot more money. Paul Rogers of the Mercury News summarizes the pluses and minuses of several key strategies. One of my copy desk cronies wrote this gem of a headline: How would you feel about ‘Budweiser Beach’?<\/a> Rogers identifies five scenarios: <\/p>\n

  • Fees<\/strong>\n

    Pluses: <\/strong> Users — who generate costs — help defray them. Alternative to unpopular taxes.
    \nMinuses:<\/strong> Prices the poor out of their parks, assets that benefit the whole state even if everybody doesn’t use them. <\/li>\n

  • Corporate sponsorship<\/strong>\n

    Pluses:<\/strong> Brands can put their names on branded activities — so, perhaps, an REI trail might encourage REI consumers to hike on it. Non-Californians let Californians off the hook financially.
    \nMinuses: <\/strong> Aesthetically offensive, politically poisonous. Funding susceptible to corporations’ bottom-line pressures.<\/li>\n

  • New taxes<\/strong>\n

    Pluses: <\/strong>Dedicated income stream protects parks from economic ups and downs. Reliable revenue ensures better upkeep, which attracts more people. Holds user fees down.
    \nMinuses: <\/strong> Prop. 13 makes it almost impossible to create new taxes, even for things the state’s populace likes, like state parks. Creating a tax for parks makes every other interest group think they oughta have their own tax too. <\/li>\n

  • Creating an endowment<\/strong>\n

    Pluses:<\/strong> A large enough endowment generates interest payments that can pay for park operations and maintenance. Limits user fees.
    \nMinuses:<\/strong> Endowment has to be huge, like a billion dollars, to generate enough income. Education interests will demand that schools get full funding before such largess is given to parks. <\/li>\n

  • Volunteers<\/strong>\n

    Plus:<\/strong> Free labor from true believers.
    \nMinus:<\/strong> Free labor from true believers. <\/li>\n

    All of these factors add up to the situation we’re in now: Over a billion dollars worth of maintenance put off till another time. Meanwhile, parks become embarrassingly tattered and people have an excuse to take their activities elsewhere. <\/p>\n

    Previously: <\/strong><\/p>\n