Opinion
The park closures are part of his proposal for a 10-percent, across-the-board cut to all state departments.
While this may sound good as a sound bite, a 10-percent cut can decimate a department that has been fiscally responsible – state parks, to be specific – while some bloated, wasteful departments and programs may actually feel less of a pinch. This is no way to lead the state and no way prioritize California’s needs.
Let’s take a closer look at the parks department’s budget to prove my point.
Over the past three decades, the department has streamlined significantly and reduced its costs. To save money, department officials began deferring maintenance operations back in 1980s. This is a fancy way of saying that they stopped fixing or repairing roofs, restrooms, parking lots, etc.
It wouldn’t have taken Nostradamus to predict that the state would begin to rack up a huge backlog of maintenance projects, the cost of which now stands at about $1.2 billion.
Next, during the budget crisis of the early 1990s, the state completely restructured the parks department, a move which resulted in the elimination of 572 staff positions and 30 percent of the supervisory and management positions.
At the beginning of the current decade, the parks department received 55 percent of its budget from the state’s general fund. That amount has now been reduced by 35 percent. Furthermore, in 2003 an additional 90 positions were cut from the department’s budget.
Californians love their parks, and because of this fees have been able to compensate for much of the cuts that the department has been subjected to over the last decade. While fees are one way to help offset general fund costs, there is a limit – at some point costs become too high for Californians, as well as tourists from other states and countries, to continue visiting the parks.
When fees become high enough, they limit park access to a dwindling number of people able to afford them, thus denying access to many working families or people on limited incomes.
The numbers make it clear that the parks department has been running on a shoestring budget for over a decade now. It is because of the creative state employees who staff these facilities and the dedicated volunteers who love these parks that the state has been able to maintain them as well as they have. The governor’s proposal to close 48 state parks – including Clear Lake State Park and Anderson Marsh State Historic Park locally – is a slap to the face of these exemplary Californians.
So will closing 48 state parks have a significant impact on the state’s budget deficit? Let’s see: The deficit is projected to be around $14 billion for the next year and a half – closing the parks, we’re told, will lead to “savings” of about $13 million. In addition, closing the 48 parks means that the state will lose almost $4 million in revenues for these sites – reducing the supposed net cost benefit by quite a bit.
It’s the governor’s responsibility to lead, and leadership includes prioritizing the state’s needs. A 10-percent, across-the-board cut is no way to do this.
Nor should the deficit burden be shouldered by the parks department, which has continually streamlined and reduced costs over the years. As we strive to reach agreement on a state budget, it is my hope that the governor will reconsider this strategy.
Patricia Wiggins (D-Santa Rosa) represents California’s large 2nd Senate District, which encompasses parts or all of six counties: Lake, Humboldt, Mendocino, Napa, Solano and Sonoma. Visit her Web site at http://dist02.casen.govoffice.com/.
{mos_sb_discuss:4}
- Details
- Written by: Sen. Patricia Wiggins
I have reviewed your address to Californians and your proposals to balance the budget. It seems strange that when there is legislation already in place that the representative members in Sacramento cannot work within those laws, but leave it to you to propose drastic budget cuts.
My concern is whether or not you understand the consequences of your actions in proposing the closing of California State Parks.
Parks belong to the people. Parks are very much a part of our educational system. Parks are a resource for senior citizens. Parks are for family recreation. Parks are where people across the nation and those from foreign countries learn about our cultural history and our national resources. Parks impact health by giving people a safe place for exercise and spiritual rejuvenation. Parks have a crucial economic impact on the areas where they are located.
Through American Disabilities Act, California parks were required to add new trails, boardwalks and restroom facilities for people with disabilities and now you propose closing these very areas to them. This is absurd and hypocritical.
For example, consider the two state parks, Anderson Marsh Historic State Park (AMHSP) and Clear Lake State Park (CLSP), in the County of Lake where I live.
An abbreviated history of these two parks adds to the appreciation of them. In 1885, AMHSP was part of a large cattle ranch with some cultivate acreage. From that date, it passed through the Anderson family until 1964, when the surviving members of the Anderson family formed a Family Trust and sold the ranch to Ray Lyon. Mora Anderson, last surviving member of the original family, continued living in the ranch house per a life estate agreement until her death in 1966. In 1982, Lyon sold the ranch to the State of California. In 1985, the ranch lands were classified as Anderson Marsh State Historic Park. The ranch house is well maintained and is open for tours and special events. It exemplifies the remarkable early history of the area.
The recent history of Clear Lake State Park begins in 1944 with the desire of Fred and Nellie Dorn that the public should have a park on the shore of Clear Lake. That resulted in their gift of land to Lake County. Through several processes, the State of California accepted approximately 300 acres from the county and began development of CLSP in 1948. Today there are numerous trails, 147 campsites, a boat launch and a visitor center with a natural history museum, gift shop, auditorium and the administrative office for both parks. Many park users have been coming to CLSP, with their families, for over 30 years.
Both of these parks are used extensively by the Lake County school systems for environmental education for their students. Junior Ranger programs serve the summer visitors to the park as well as resident children. These are opportunities for learning that do not exist within the doors of the schools. Campfire programs by the Park Rangers educate and entertain all ages.
Both of these parks have non-profit Interpretive Associations whose members staff the ranch house and the natural history museum and gift shop, lead walks, and present specialized programs for children and adults. Without compensation, the associations and docents assist with student education and present nature related programs to civic groups throughout the year. These volunteers are not unique, as they join with 26,000 park volunteers within California.
Two major events take place each year. The Anderson Marsh Historic State Park Bluegrass Festival takes place in the fall. The Heron Festival - Wildflower Brunch takes place in April in Clear Lake State Park. It is co-sponsored by local Redbud Audubon Chapter and the Clear Lake State Park Interpretive Association (CLSPIA). Many other events are hosted throughout the year.
CLSPIA is currently raising funds to build an Education Pavilion in the Clear Lake State Park.
The Anderson Marsh Interpretive Association is drawing plans for a discovery facility at that location. These associations also fund the gift shops and additions to the visitor center museum.
You are probably already well aware that understaffed and underpaid Park Rangers are also law enforcement officers and faithfully provide safety for all who enter the parks?
Governor, I believe it would be very short sighted for California to close any of its state parks. You say we have 37 million people now in the state and estimate that in twenty years there will be 50 million. Please weigh carefully the educational, health and recreational value of our state parks. Rather than closing parks, parks should be given more funds so that they can meet the ever-growing population and needs of Californians. The cost of closure, repair and reopening would be enormous.
If California would stop rewarding illegals with housing, medical care, education and food, I truly believe that the State of California would find enough money to balance the budget. Please explain why taxes from legal hard-working citizens should go for services for illegals while such things as education and parks suffer severe budget cuts and closures.
From Federation for American Immigration Reform: Analysis of the latest Census data indicates that California’s illegal immigrant population is costing the state’s taxpayers more than $10.5 billion per year for education, medical care and incarceration. Even if the estimated tax contributions of illegal immigrant workers are subtracted, net outlays still amount to nearly $9 billion per year. The annual fiscal burden from those three areas of state expenditures amounts to about $1,183 per household headed by a native-born resident. A huge amount of money earned by illegal immigrants is being sent directly to their relatives in Mexico every month.
I respectfully request that you withdraw your proposal to close California State Parks.
Leona Butts is a member of the Clear Lake State Park Interpretive Association Board of Directors. She lives in Clearlake Oaks.
{mos_sb_discuss:4}
- Details
- Written by: Lake County News Reports
How to resolve AdBlock issue?