CLOSING STATE PARKS: REAL POSSIBILITY OR REALLY GOOD BARGAINING CHIP?
By Anthony Pignataro/CalWatchdog.com
It was an unseasonably cool and rainy afternoon in Sacramento, and there were about two dozen of us standing under the entry porch of the Governor’s Mansion. Usually just two or three tourists show up these days, and the tour guide couldn’t believe the crowd. “Is this how it’s going to be all summer?” the guide asked us.
Interesting question. The crowd had gathered because the mansion had just appeared on the latest list of California parks and historic buildings—70 of them, a quarter of the state’s total—that are threatened with closure soon because of budget cuts. Closing these places is expected to save an estimated $11 million in the fiscal year 2011-12, and another $22 million in 2012-13.
The Governor’s Mansion is located at 16th and I streets in Sacramento and was used for about 64 years, from governors George Pardee to Ronald Reagan—although Ronnie and Nancy only lived there three months before she derided it as a “firetrap” and found more modern lodgings.
It’s a grand building and it would be a shame to close it, but during our tour we learned that little of it—only two of its five above-ground floors—has ever been open to the public. The third-floor ballrooms and billiards room remain completely empty, still awaiting restoration despite the fact that the mansion has been part of the state parks department since the Reagans vacated in 1967.
OTHER PARKS SLATED FOR CLOSURE? The early state capitol building in Benicia made the list, as did the mansions of former Gov. Leland Stanford and Pio Pico, the last Mexican governor of California. The eerie Mono Lake Tufa State Nature Reserve is on the list, as are the gorgeous Redwood forests at Hendy Woods in Mendocino and Grizzly Creek Woods near Eureka. Even the old Shasta ghost town is slate to close down.
Of course, threatening to close state parks is not exactly new. In 2009, then-Gov. Arnold “The Lovenator” Schwarzenegger proposed closing an astonishing 220 parks to save money. That threat disappeared when a budget deal laden with gimmicks finally passed.
In fact, our guide acted as though the latest announcement was no different than others that have been made fairly regularly over the last few years. “We have no idea when they would close us,” the guide told us. “They said we’d be closed last year, and we’re still here.”
There are some pretty clear signs that the threat to state parks is an attempt to rally Democrats against the anti-tax Republicans. One of them is the Parks and Recreation Department’s May 13 press release announcing the closures. The key quote comes from John Laird, the State Resources Agency Secretary: “Hopefully, Republicans in the legislature will agree to allow California voters to decide whether we extend currently existing taxes or make deeper cuts to our parks.”
Nothing galvanizes the left like a frontal assault on parks and historic buildings. They are portrayed as sacred places, shrines to either history or nature that must be protected. But Democrats in the Senate have already killed Republican proposals to keep the parks open—simply because they won’t play ball on taxes.
But what’s ironic is that closing parks is totally unnecessary and, in fact, rather stupid. That’s because non-profit organizations are completely capable of running historic sites and parks.
For instance, there’s the aircraft carrier USS Hornet in Alameda. Though unquestionably a historic location—the ship recovered the Apollo 11 command module after it’s 1969 trip to the moon—it is today run as a museum by the non-profit Aircraft Carrier Hornet Foundation.
Schwarzenegger put this into practice last summer, though with typically feckless results. Seeking to augment the finances of struggling Fort Ross State Historic Park—the location of an early Russian trading post—Schwarzenegger signed a deal with the new non-profit Renova Fort Ross Foundation. Great! Except that the parks department failed to realize it was signing on with a Russian company that was under fire for disclosure law violations in Switzerland.
FORT ROSS WAS THE RIGHT IDEA, but the state needs to do far more due diligence on potential non-profit partners considering parks officials noted the possibilities of non-profits taking over state parks in the May 13 statement.
“With this announcement, we can begin to seek additional partnership agreements to keep open as many parks as possible,” said State Parks Department head Ruth Coleman. “We already have 32 operating agreements with our partners—cities, counties and non-profits—to operate state parks, and will be working statewide to expand that successful template.”
Again, great! But why didn’t the state just do that to begin with?
16 Comments
If closing every single state park indefinitely will help to drive home to a majority of California voters just how abysmally their elected officials have been managing their tax dollars, then I say close them…all of them…and keep them closed until Californian’s finally start to wake up and take back constructive control of their state and its operations once again.
Approximately 25% of the parks and campgrounds in the mountains in Kern County were already shut down and barred off last year due to budget constraints.
Money for Parks and Schools, which contribute to childrens’ education, is being squeezed more and more to meet the budget. Parks are being shut down. Classroom sizes are expanding. Meanwhile, how many layoffs or benefit reductions has there been for State, County and City workers? Has it been 25%? Doubt it.
The gov’t does not have the ability to make rational budget cuts. A politician’s job is to get re-elected, not make sound economic decisions, which is how we have people like Garcia and Lowenthal (even Brown, for that matter). Is their expertise in economics?
Besides death and taxes, another certain thing is political corruption.
I don’t know, things may just have to play themselves out.
get rid of prop 13 and the problem is solved. anything else is just rearranging the deck chairs.
I’m with Greet on this one. Shut down ALL of the parks. It’s going to take something that draconian to cause people to sit up and question why elected officials have routed the majority of our tax dollars to city, county and state worker compensation.
I’m with howardx on this one. Abolish Prop 13 which is really rent control for landlords.
Anyone who can no longer afford to live in Cali will move out and potential immigrants the world over will be discouraged from emmigrating here.
A deflating state population will result in decreased demand for public infrastructure and government services. Thus, the need for overcompensated public employees will decrease, saving tax dollars.
Not to mention less traffic congestion.
“It’s going to take something that draconian to cause people to sit up and question why elected officials have routed the majority of our tax dollars to city, county and state worker compensation.”
since thats patently untrue it may take something EVEN more draconian than closing all the parks to get the voters to believe lies. the majority goes where it always goes, K-12 education.
howardx: By the way, your moniker is a combination of week and bold mixed, similar to myself. Do you really think Prop 13 is bringing down the big boat? Then, why are most other states, the nation, the PIGS of Europe, etc, going through the same stuff?
Mr. Ruehle, can you cite a credible and objective source for your contention that elected officials have routed the majority of our tax dollars to city, county and state worker compensation?
rino2
i think prop 13 gets in the way of finding solutions to our state problems and lets a small minority of regressive obstructionists essentially dictate to the rest of us. the increased revenue that would come from commercial properties having to pay their fair share of taxes would certainly help as well.
howardX, if you end prop 13, more commercial property owners will fold and many older people in homes protected by it will have to move out. Overall, my guess is more revenue will dry up than come in if you eliminate prop 13, and you’re not dealing with more impt problems.
rino2: I think you illustrate one of the age-old argument between cons and libs…that of generating income with which to operate government.
Presuming that tax/fee revenue must be the primary source of that income, how best to generate those funds? Do we pursue the quick-fix method, wherein we set and keep tax/fee rates high and provide government what we can as fast as we can regardless of the restrictive and detrimental affects that approach has on those who are generating the revenue?
Or do we set and keep tax/fee rates low, so that we generate revenues at a slower rate, but allow those who are generating the revenue to keep more of the income they earn so that they may, in turn, become still more productive, thus generating more tax/fee revenues than they may have otherwise?
The latter, more conservative, approach seems to make the most financial sense but takes a lot longer. So for it to work we must be patient, deliberate, and focused.
But we are not a patient, deliberate or focused people. We have become a get-as-much-as-we-can-as-fast-as-we-can sort of society, and I think our government reflects that and, in fact, caters to it.
Conservative fiscal policies just do not reflect or cater to the predominant values of a society far more attuned to instant gratification than to patient and sustainable improvement and growth.
And so it goes..
Greet: I agree with you we should make cuts that may seem drastic to those accustomed to gov’t largess, but do you really need evidence that government employees are over compensated? You do not know what you are talking about, unless you have worked for the State. Do you not remember when being a civil servant was supposed to be an honor despite lower pay, and enticed with good benefits? Those days are gone when there is no honor and all gov’t employees behave like the post office.
Greet: there is no “age-old argument between cons and libs,” it is merely a result of a century of progressivism infiltrating the two parties, whereas both hold designs of progress over prudence. Do not be fooled by what you are told. Educate yourself.
Greet: as I’ve said before, speak for yourself. Unlike what you claim us to be, I am patient, deliberate and focused. I have not always been, but people change. I expect someday you will learn to be succinct.
Greet: “Conservative fiscal policies just do not reflect or cater to the predominant values of a society far more attuned to instant gratification than to patient and sustainable improvement and growth.” I don’t know where to start with that other than saying you are a fool. I suggest reading “The Road to Serfdom,” by F.A. Hayek. You will learn what a liberal should stand for and maybe figure out why American conservatives are the original liberals.
John, by my defending prop 13, this illustrated to YOU the “age-old argument between cons and libs…”. That’s why trying to make a case with facts and data doesn’t go too far, because people process differently based on their underlying assumptions of their thinking.
Brad: “… but do you really need evidence that government employees are over compensated?”
- I think some government employees are over-compensated (bad teachers and unprofessional cops, for example). I think others are drastically under-compensated considering the great value they can add to our society and the serious risks they often take on our behalf. (good teachers and professional public safety employees, for example.)
Brad: “Those days are gone when there is no honor and all gov’t employees behave like the post office.”
- I think you grossly overstate the lack of honor among public employees and unfairly generalize their behavior. The vast majority of public employees I know are honorable, respectful, hard working family men and women just trading their labor for an income not unlike most others in the private sector. But we don’t here much about that vast majority, because it doesn’t sell newspapers or ad time on TV news broadcasts or provide endless fodder for critical commentary on websites like this one. No, Brad, it is the vast minority of public employees (I would estimate less than 1% of the total) who accomplish that and who manage to skew public perception against the rest.
Brad: “…as I’ve said before, speak for yourself.”
- I never claim to do otherwise, Brad. I offer my perceptions about the majority in our society, just as many others do here. You disagree with my perception. I think that’s great. I also happen to think that the evidence to support my perception is quite prevalent and fairly obvious if one simply chooses to take the time to observe it and analyze it in a more critical manner. You disagree. I think that’s great too!
Brad: “I don’t know where to start with that other than saying you are a fool. I suggest reading “The Road to Serfdom,” by F.A. Hayek. You will learn what a liberal should stand for and maybe figure out why American conservatives are the original liberals.”
- Offering personal insults is neither constructive nor productive. Resorting to them only serves to undermine, rather than bolster, your arguments. I am familiar with Dr. Hayek’s work, as well as that of von Mises, and Friedman, and Sowell) and I admire it all a very great deal. If it is your intention to explain that what we consider to be conservative thought today was actually the liberal thought of the 18th century, I fully agree. So where is your beef with me? It sound as if we both seek truly fiscally conservative approaches to public policy challenges and most especially those of a fiscal nature. If you disagree -and you seem to- with my characterization of our current modern-day-liberalism-run-amok, ADHD-afflicted society (and the national [and, indeed many state] governments that are a reflection of it) then please point to any current national policy (Hayek would say “Plan”) that does *not* reflect my perception.