The fate of the California state parks is still up in the air. 100 out of the state’s 279 parks are slated to be closed to help shore up the budget gap. Park funding was yanked by Governor Schwarzenegger in a unilateral move when the legislature refused to pass the cuts he thought were necessary.
When and if the drastic shuttering takes place, Arnold Schwarzenegger will be the first governor in California history to close a state park in order to save money.
This week State Parks officials said that they aren’t exactly sure which 100 parks will be closed as making that list has turned out to be more complicated then anyone quite realized.
Yet there is a ballot measure that will go on the November 2010 ballot. If passe it will raise vehicle license fees $15 to raise $400 million a year, and fully fund the parks and then some, reports the San Jose Mercury News.
Environmental organizations such as the Nature Conservancy, National Audubon Society, Trust for Public Land, Save-the-Redwoods League and others have raised nearly $1 million and conducted months of polling toward getting the measure on the ballot.
In a serendipitous bit of timing, to remind us of the importance of our public open spaces, Ken Burns’ new documentary “National Parks: Americas Best Idea,” premiers this month on PBS and KCET. It was filmed over a period of six years.
To help focus attention on the series, California civil rights lawyer, Robert Garcia, who is also the Founder and Executive Director of The City Project, will be guest blogging for KCET about the importance of our region’s national, local and—of course—our imperiled state parks.
There are few in the state more knowledgeable on the issue, or more impassioned.
Wallace Stegner, the Stanford writer and historian, famously wrote national parks were “the best idea we ever had.” “Absolutely American, absolutely democratic, they reflect us at our best rather than our worst.” National parks continue to diversify what it means to be American and democratic.
Using the poorly named “line item veto,” Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger managed, with the stroke of a pen, to make a series of unilateral budget cuts that bypassed legislative approval.
They include an additional $6.2 million cut from the state parks budget, which according to Bob Cruickshank at CALTICS will likely cause as many as 50 more parks to be closed—or 100 total, which is potentially 1/3 of California’s State Parks.
UPDATE: Here is a letter from California State Parks Foundation president Elizabeth Goldstein:
“This is a dark day in the history of California’s state park system. At a time when Californians are most in need of their low cost, accessible state parks, the gates are being slammed in their faces. At a time when local businesses, particularly in rural communities, most rely on tourism and park visitation for their own economic stimulus, the doors are being shut to them. In the context of an $85 billion General Fund budget, the $14.2 million in “savings” that would come from closing more than 100 state parks is truly a drop in the bucket. But it’s a small drop that will have a ripple effect, then a tsunami, for park visitors and local economies.
Closing more than one-third of the state park system cannot be done without real consequences to Californians. Although CSPF and other park partners are already trying to identify ways to keep some parks open, it will simply not be possible for the state to walk away from 100 parks and expect others to fully substitute for its public responsibility. California’s state parks have been teetering on the brink of a funding cliff for several decades, this action now pushes them over the edge. California cannot afford for its state parks to be a political football every year. Our state parks desperately need a dedicated funding source to protect them from these now- annual budget actions.”
• Elimination of state funding for community health clinic programs
• $80 million cut to child welfare services
• Total of about $400 million in health care cuts, including further Healthy Families cuts
• Elimination of funding for the Williamson Act programs to preserve farmland from development
• Deeper cuts to HIV/AIDS programs,
The only fallback position is a veto override.
About that:Fat chance.
But, hey, let’s make sure we keep that 1.2 billion in corrections. (More about that tomorrow. I have some new thoughts about early prisoner release. HINT: It’s not at all what you think.)
God help me, I’m beginning to think we should revisit oil drilling. I’m serious. (If you disagree and are not driving a hybrid, I don’t want to hear about it.) (Or a VW, or other cunning non-gas guzzler.]
Photo by Gary Valle, Sierraphotography.com
Last October, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to wade into the battle over whether then president George Bush should be able to override a federal judge after that judge ruled that the US Navy would have to modify its use of sonar in training exercises held off the Southern California coast because of compelling evidence that the sonar did harm to whales.
Yet, despite mounds of data showing that sonar was causing whale deaths, in a 6 to 3 decision, the Supremes decided for the Navy and against the whales, the most recent version of centuries worth of conflict between whales and humans.
Still, in the view of many naturalists, the fact that the Supreme Court had been willing to hear the case at all was a welcome step forward. Moreover, after the decision the Navy agreed to do more to protect the whales when conducting its exercises.
Now, says Charles Siebert, writing for the NY Times Magazine, some biologists are beginning to believe that whales might be rewarding the more benign attitude that our species has had toward theirs in the past string of decades by consistently seeking us out in a way that seems…..relational. The huge creatures seem to want contact.
The phenomenon is most notably occurring, writes Siebert, in a particular area of Baja California.
I should note that Siebert occasionally tends to romanticize the great cetaceans that are considered to be among the planet’s most intelligent non-human mammels. But the story he tells of biologists perplexed by this suddenly friendly whale behavior is nonetheless fascinating.
Here are a few clips.
Scientists have now documented behaviors like tool use and cooperative hunting strategies among whales. Orcas, or killer whales, have been found to mourn their own dead. Just three years ago, researchers at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York discovered, in the brains of a number of whale species, highly specialized neurons that are linked to, among other things, the use of language and were once thought to be the exclusive property of humans and a few other primates. Indeed, marine biologists are now revealing not only the dizzying variety of vocalizations among a number of whale species but also complex societal structures and cultures.
Whales, we now know, teach and learn. They scheme. They cooperate, and they grieve. They recognize themselves and their friends. They know and fight back against their enemies. And perhaps most stunningly, given all of our transgressions against them, they may even, in certain circumstances, have learned to trust us again.
[HUGE SNIP]
“I don’t anthropomorphize,” [marine mammal behavioralist named Toni Frohoff] told me. “I leave it to other people to do that. What I do is study gray whales using the same rigorous methodologies that have long been used to study the behaviors of other species and interspecies interaction. Those who would reject out of hand the idea that whales are intelligent enough to consciously interact with us haven’t spent enough time around whales.”
[BIG SNIP]
I thought of another bit of interspecies cooperation involving humpbacks that I recently read about. A female humpback was spotted in December 2005 east of the Farallon Islands, just off the coast of San Francisco. She was entangled in a web of crab-trap lines, hundreds of yards of nylon rope that had become wrapped around her mouth, torso and tail, the weight of the traps causing her to struggle to stay afloat. A rescue team arrived within a few hours and decided that the only way to save her was to dive in and cut her loose.
For an hour they cut at the lines and rope with curved knives, all the while trying to steer clear of a tail they knew could kill them with one swipe. When the whale was finally freed, the divers said, she swam around them for a time in what appeared to be joyous circles. She then came back and visited with each one of them, nudging them all gently, as if in thanks. The divers said it was the most beautiful experience they ever had. As for the diver who cut free the rope that was entangled in the whale’s mouth, her huge eye was following him the entire time, and he said that he will never be the same.
UPDATE: Both Siebert and biologist Toni Frohoff are interviewed by Terry Gross on today’s Fresh Air. The audio just now went up. I’m listening as I type. Give yourself a treat when you have time. It’ll cheer you up, I promise.
Hearing about members of two different species reaching out to each other makes the world and all of its problems seem like a slightly more manageable place.
The now familiar tango continues in the California state capitol in which the governor threatens hideous actions if the lawmakers don’t get their collective acts together and come up with a viable budget by a certain deadline, the lawmakers miss the deadline, and the governor re-calibrates his threat.
One of the worst of Arnold’s previous threats is, I believe, about to be yanked off the table, and that is the proposed closing of 220 of California’s 279 state parks.
While the parks’ hours may be shortened to save money, the threatened closures will not happen for the following three reasons:
For one thing, Robert Garcia of the City Project says it isn’t legal to close the parks—and he said as much in a detailed letter citing plenty of case law that he sent this week to Arnold Schwarzenegger and the rest of the big five, namely Senate President pro tempore Darrell Steinberg, Senate Minority Leader Dennis Hollingsworth, Assembly Speaker Karen Bass and Assembly Minority Leader Sam Blakeslee.
Since Garcia is arguably the smartest environmental justice lawyer in the state, I tend to believe him on such things, the five would be wise to believe him too. (Since otherwise he’ll sue their sorry butts and likely win. Here’s a link to the letter.)
************************************************************************************************************************ 2. If We Close the Parks, the Feds will Take Them Over
Well, not all the parks. But as of Wednesday, National Park Service Regional Director Jonathan Jarvis said that if Schwarzenegger goes ahead with the closures he threatened last month, that the Feds are legally empowered to seize the state parks that are located on Federal land, which include the Big Sur area, Point Magu, and four of California’s other big parks. To make things worse, we will lose millions in federal grants. And….by all accounts, Jarvis is willing to make good on the threat.
3. Closing the Parks Was Always a Stupid idea, Fiscally Speaking.
Exactly a month ago, advocates pointed out that the revenue generated by visitors to the various state parks, exceeds their cost. But no one seemed to be listening.
Then in early June, Sacramento State University released a study that verified the fact that the cost/benefit ratio does not favor shuttering the parks at all. In other words, closing the parks would ultimately result in losing money, not gaining it.
************************************************************************************************************************
Certainly, the legislature and governor have demonstrated repeatedly that logic is not always their strong suit. But this logic is inescapable.
If it were up to me, trucks and solo drivers would be banned from all L.A. freeways during rush hour. Carpools would not be two people; they would be a driver and at least two passengers. Buses would be free for all. Fares would be low for light-rail and subways. We would be happy to pay higher taxes because the 20,000 premature deaths blamed every year on air pollution would drop.
Believe it or not, we’re headed there–slowly, and in very small steps. For the next couple weeks, the public will be weighing in on a congestion pricing program that will allow solo drivers to pay to drive in carpool lanes on stretches of the I-110 and I-10. Ladies and gentlemen, you can deal with it. The revolution has not begun.
Of course, foes abound. I suspect that L.A. Times’ columnist Tim Rutten represents the thinking of many people as he tried to tear apart the plan this week. He was not particularly well-informed and chose either to ignore important elements that address low-income drivers, public transit, the environment and health benefits, or maybe he didn’t read the entire plan. But fully weigh his views, particularly his demeaning example of a fictional mom working downtown who is rushing to care for her sick child at a Westside daycare. Here’s his column.
Make sure you read this overwrought line about the poor mom:
A society that can rationalize the imposition of such pain doesn’t need to worry over how to define equity; it needs to worry about its soul.
Note to Rutten: Rework the soul scold after doing some research on ultrafine particle pollution and learning how millions of microscopic specks that can fit on a nailhead find their way into lungs, hearts and brains of Los Angeles residents. These particles contribute to the respiratory ills that sicken and kill thousands every year. No society can allow this to continue.
They shot down his arguments by addressing the full range of alternatives offered by the program:
This program provides the single mother with additional choices, some of which may be preferable to her. Through the $200 million in transit improvements along with the creation of the ExpressLanes, one new choice would be to take better and more reliable transit to avoid the highway traffic. Another choice based on the program would be to enter the toll lanes and save essential time. That choice could be made easier if she uses credits that she has built up by using transit, an element we’re including in the program specifically for lower-income commuters.
Mr. Rutten seems to suggest single moms will have difficulty making decisions when facing traffic congestion. Single moms respond every day to changing circumstances and choices that are far more complex. Traffic doesn’t have to be like the weather. We may not be able to transform it altogether, but we can have choices to make it better — for everyone. That’s the point of this program.
Pick a side, any side, and show up at a public hearing, starting Saturday. Here’s the schedule.
FISCAL BLOWBACK: BEFORE SHUTTING STATE PARKS….PLEASE DO THE MATH
There were committee hearings yesterday on Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s plans to close223 of California’s State Park, Beaches and Recreation Areas, with the park gates being padlocked as soon as Labor day. Those proposing the closure say that shuttering the parks could save $70 million in park costs through June 30, 2010, plus an additional $143.4 million during the 2010-2011 fiscal year.
(Look at the list. It’s pretty startling. Morro Bay. Pfeiffer Big Sur State Park. Parts of Lake Tahoe. Malibu Creek, Point Mugu, the Humboldt Redwoods, the Anza-Borrego Desert and the Salton Sea—plus 215 more.)
According to park advocates, however, in addition to the ghastly loss to the state’s sense of well being that park closures represent, shutting down the state’s parks may be fuzzy-headed thinking from a fiscal perspective too.
Annually, 80 million people visit California’s State Parks and, in addition to paying park fees and the like, those visitors also mean substantial amounts of money to the surrounding economies. The Sierra Sun, which covers the region that includes parks in such areas as Truckee and Tahoe, reports:
In a survey done in 2002, state parks brought $6.5 billion in revenue to private businesses across the state from tourism, said Pam Armas, California State Parks Sierra District Superintendent, and the Truckee-Tahoe area is particularly influenced by park visitors.
[Elizabeth Goldstein, president of the California State Parks Foundation] said that, for every dollar spent, the state parks generate $2.35 in tax revenue from economic activity in the local communities surrounding the parks. That means the state could potentially see a [LARGE] reduction in revenue by closing the parks.
In this morning’s editorial, the LA Times points out that closing the parks may not just be loss of revenue, park shutdowns may cost the state big bucks in terms collateral damage and unexpected payouts.
Closing parks doesn’t mean that people won’t use them. It means that law-abiding people won’t use them. Among those who will: meth lab operators, marijuana farmers, the homeless, taggers, poachers, rogue mountain bikers and off-roaders, as well as just plain campers who think the rules don’t apply to their personal visits. Wildfire danger would increase from illegal, unsupervised campfires, sparks from off-road vehicles and drug operations. The cost of a single catastrophic fire could wipe out most of the savings from closing parks. Crime could turn the parks into expensive public nuisances.
[SNIP}
Though details haven’t been worked out, so far the proposal calls for putting up to 220 parks on “caretaker” status, which means turning off the water and power, boarding up the windows and sending regional patrols in every now and then to look for damage that needs immediate attention. This isn’t a workable scenario. Imagine trying to “close” the 600,000-acre Anza-Borrego Desert State Park in San Diego County.
Like any homeowner who moves but has a legal responsibility to keep the vacant property in decent order, the state cannot simply lock the gates of state parks and walk away. Nor is this a long-term solution to the state’s budget crisis. Californians expect to see these treasured resources reopened within a couple of years, and they must be maintained with that in mind, not as potential lots for the auction block. The state is hurting badly, but it is not for sale.
Math is your friend, people!
****************************************************************************************************
BLOWBACK FROM CUTTING SUMMER SCHOOL
Another worthwhile LAT Op Ed is by Gisselle Acevedo, president and chief executive of Para Los Niños. She writes from personal experience about how, slashing the district’s summer school programs means that many parents will be “forced to choose between feeding their children or protecting their children. ”
******************************************************************************************************************
BLOWBACK FROM “RHETORICAL RECKLESSNESS”
Somewhat contradicting yesterday’s unpleasantly lecture-laden LA Times editorial about how those of us pro-choice people should just chill on the subject of inflammatory anti abortion rhetoric, Times columnist Tim Rutten comes down rather differently on the subject. Here’s how he ends his column:
….It’s fair to wonder whether any of those who have rhetorically insisted that voluntarily terminating a pregnancy and shooting an abortion provider are equally murder, or that a Planned Parenthood clinic and Auschwitz are in any fashion analogous, now are willing to entertain the possibility that verbal extremism — however effective as argument — has consequences.
In the American debate over abortion, the extravagance of the moral argument and the intemperance of its expression have had consequences — and we have the graves to prove it.
OBAMA ALLOWS ACTUAL SCIENCE BACK INTO MANAGEMENT OF THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
On the 160th anniversary of the Department of the Interior, President Barack Obama issued a presidential memorandum reversing one of the worst of the ten-minutes-before-midnight regulatory changes that the Bush administration slipped past us as he skedaddled back to Texas. This particular bit of 11th-hour Bush fiddling sought to cripple the Endangered Species Act by cutting scientists out of the review process, allowing federal agencies to decide on their own whether federal projects did or did not pose a threat to imperiled wildlife—without any pesky input from….you know….biologists.
Obama’s announcement is in the video above.
And here’s the LA Times story on Obama’s refreshingly sane move.
(The Times also wins the award for the best use of a photo printed along with it’s story in order to emotionally blackmail its readers. Not that I’m complaining, mind you.)
DO WE REALLY WANT TO SPEND THIS MUCH OF OUR MONEY ON PRISONS? REALLY? I MEAN, REALLY???
In our crash-and-burn economy, how much does it cost us to lock up our fellow citizens? Turns out, the only cost growing faster than corrections in the U.S., is Medicaid.
That is because we lock up so damn many of ourselves.
Right now, 1 in 31 U.S. adults are under correctional control. “Correctional control” meaning they are either in prison, in jail, or on probation or parole.
These figures are from a new study released on Monday by the Pew Center on the States. Pew has been on a roll with its studies in the last few years, bringing to our attention how much money and human potential we are wasting with our 25-year-long case of incarceration fever.
In California, by the way, the state that has the nation’s largest state prison system, that ratio is 1 in 36.
In Georgia, it is 1 in 13.
Georgia leads the top five states, which include Idaho, Texas, Massachusetts, Ohio and the District of Columbia.
The Pew folks note that, in the past two decades, state general fund spending on corrections increased by more than 300 percent, outpacing other essential government services from education, to transportation and public assistance. “Today, corrections imposes a national taxpayer burden of $68 billion a year,” the Pew study said. Yet despite all the money states are pouring into corrections, recidivism rates have remained largely unchanged. People get out of prison and then, in very high numbers, they go back.
The Pew group has some suggestions about how we might slow the prison merry-go-round.
“Most states are facing serious budget deficits,” said Susan Urahn, managing director of The Pew Center on the States. “Every single one of them should be making smart investments in community corrections that will help them cut costs and improve outcomes.”
I’ve only begun to read the study. Have a look. Tell me what you find.
***********************************************************************************************
JERRY BROWN IN HUFFINGTON POST: PROP 8 IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, PERIOD
California Attorney General Jerry Brown is taking his case against Prop 8 to the public with a new column in the Huffington Post.
A SIDE NOTE: In his quest to get back into the Governor’s mansion, Jerry has been aggressively courting every police and prosecutor group in the state with his conspicuously law-and-order stance on a whole host of criminal justice topics [BAD], while doing equally aggressive work on important environmental issues [GOOD] combined with his defense of certain social issues [GOOD TOO], his opposition to Prop 8, the most high-profile example. I’m not saying he’s doing all this entirely cynically. But it all looks mighty strategic.
Will it work? Hard to say.
In any case, here’s the opening to the column:
The California Supreme Court finds itself center stage this Thursday when it will hear oral arguments on whether it should uphold Proposition 8’s ban on same-sex marriage.
The case touches the heart of our democracy and poses a profound question: can a bare majority of voters strip away an inalienable right through the initiative process? If so, what possible meaning does the word inalienable have?
The state faced a dilemma like this before. In 1964, 65 percent of California voters approved Proposition 14, which would have legalized racial discrimination in the selling or renting of housing. Both the California and U.S. Supreme Courts struck down this proposition, concluding that it amounted to an unconstitutional denial of rights.
As California’s Attorney General, I believe the Court should strike down Proposition 8 for remarkably similar reasons — because it unconstitutionally discriminates against same-sex couples and deprives them of the fundamental right to marry.
Some vigorously disagree. That’s the position of Ken Starr and those who argue that a simple majority can eliminate the right to marry. But such a claim completely ignores California’s history and the nature of our constitution.
Read the rest. As mentioned earlier, the case tees up before the California Supremes Thursday. And we’ll all be paying very close attention.
On Thursday in Missoula, Montana, the jury selection began for the criminal trial of five executives of the W.R. Grace & Company. The men stand accused of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and violations of the Clean Air Act.
Federal prosecutors allege that the executives knew that workers at a Grace-owned vermiculite mine in Libby, Mont. (pictured), were exposed to dangerous levels of asbestos, but continued to release it into the air and misrepresented the danger. Click here for Thursday’s NYT article; here for coverage from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, which has followed the case extensively.
At least 200 deaths and thousands of illnesses are known to be related to the town’s exposure to the mine’s dust clouds of vermiculite, which was layered with naturally occurring asbestos.
The Seattle Post- Intelligencer has been doing, perhaps, the best job with its coverage of all the events leading up to the charges:
Tiny Libby, Montana, depended for years on the jobs at a vermiculite mine. But the mine is closed now, and a P-I investigation shows the town is paying a tragic price for those jobs. Hundreds of former miners, their wives and children, and other townspeople have either died or been diagnosed with fatal illness from asbestos the mine released into the air. No one stepped in to stop the dying. Now the town wonders when it will end, and if the town’s children are still at risk
A reckoning in one of American history’s worst industrial disasters, which unfolded here over seven decades as an asbestos-tainted mineral was dug from the ground and processed…
[SNIP]
Dr. Teitelbaum, a retired toxicologist who is among the prosecution’s witnesses, says that in 1977, under a contract with Grace, a laboratory he then owned was sent hundreds of chest X-rays of Libby workers and of workers at a Grace vermiculite mine in South Carolina. The South Carolina mine’s vermiculite was not tainted with asbestos, and Dr. Teitelbaum says he saw the differences immediately.
“At end of the study, I wrote a letter saying that 30 percent of the miners in Libby have asbestosis, and nobody in South Carolina has asbestosis,” he said. “They said thank you very much and did nothing with it.”
The Judge on the case is U.S. District Judge Donald Molloy, a man who is not easily pushed around—by either side.
It will be an interesting and important case to watch.
UPDATE: Admittedly, I’m particularly interested in the issue in that, Libby, Montana, is about 120 miles away from the cabin in West Glacier, where I go most summers. In Montana distances, 120 miles is just a neighborhood or two over and so I’ve been hearing tales about the suffering caused by W.R Grace for….quite literally decades.
Libby is located in one of the very reddest areas of a red state. (Personally I consider MT to be a purple state, but that’s another discussion altogether.)
Yet, one of the big issues in this trial finding a jury of 12 people that aren’t already biased against Grace, because so many people have been affected, or know people who have been affected, by what surely appears to be criminal negligence.
Most cases of this nature only go to civil court. But this one is a criminal case for good reason— with the Grace executives looking at possible decades in prison. “Worse than Three Mile Island and Love Canal combined,” is the way the citizens in Libby describe the effects of W.R. Grace on their town—-and on the people whose lungs, in the words of one, turned to “solid concrete.”
It’s a great program and terrific story to read. Here’s how it begins.
(Note: Since the WSJ hides itself behind a subscriber only fire wall, I’ve also linked to another site that has the story.)
When Albert Ortega was released from prison four months ago, he was determined to turn his life around. So he went green.
Mr. Ortega sports tattoos of an Aztec warrior on his back, a dragon on his chest and the name of his former gang, the East Side Wilmas, rings his biceps. Drug trafficking kept him locked up for most of the past seven years, he says. But after serving his last term, for 18 months, he heard about a solar-panel installation course.
“I wanted a new way of life,” says the tall, brawny 34-year-old. “Solar puts me on the cutting edge.”
In the race to train America’s “green-collar” work force, a group composed mostly of former Los Angeles gang members on parole is an early participant. Their training is funded by Homeboy Industries, a Los Angeles nonprofit that helps people with criminal pasts find employment.
President Barack Obama has made the production of renewable energy one of the pillars of job creation. All sorts of people are now rushing to acquire skills to launch careers in the budding sector.
For years, Homeboy Industries put former felons to work at a bakery and cafe it runs in East Los Angeles. Last summer, founder Greg Boyle, a Jesuit priest, was approached by a supporter about the idea of preparing them for the green economy.
Then, after you read it, answer one question for me: If our mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa, is loudly committing himself to gang prevention and intervention programs, and also noisily backing Proposition B, the so-called Green Energy and Good Jobs for Los Angeles Act, then why doesn’t he combine the two urges and provide Homeboy’s solar program with some kind of nominal support—and then take credit for their success—instead of throwing whatever city money the mayor’s office controls at less proven and/or effective gang intervention programs. (More on this in the coming weeks.)
As the House and Senate begin their reconciliation battle over their respective stimulus packages, it’s important to look again at some important elements that have been cut from each package in the recent haggling.
It has been well reported that, incredibly, Republicans of both houses demanded that none of the stimulus money be used to build or repair schools. The Senate package cut all school construction money, whereas the House managed to hold in $20 billion, although it is difficult to say if, even this pared down amount, will make the final cut.
But that’s not all. The Senate’s version prohibits any money from going toward building or improving….. are you ready?….community parks.
Parks for God’s sake! Jungle gyms. Baseball diamonds. Swing sets. Green spaces.
Here’s the relevant clip that has the exact language of the anti-park amendment: The Coburn amendment would prohibit funding in the bill from going to gambling establishments, aquariums, swimming pools, zoos, golf courses, stadiums, community parks, museums, theaters, art centers, and highway beautification projects.
Oh, yeah, that works. No gambling casinos or parks. Right. I’d group those two together. No black jack or…..trees.
By the way, after Coburn insisted upon his amendment, he voted against the package anyway.
I was alerted to the Senate’s NO PARKS prohibition by Robert Garcia—the head of the LA-based City Project. A former civil rights lawyer, Garcia is one of the state’s tops expert on the importance of green space to the health of a city and its inhabitants—and why the absence of urban parks is an important social justice issue..
Since the anti-parks thing seemed crazily mean-spirited even by Congressional standards, I asked Garcia what he thought.
“I suspect its because Republicans have plenty of parks in their neighborhoods,” he said grumpily. “Here’s the thing, it’s easy for the Congressional leadership to cut parks, because the popular conception is that parks are a luxury.”
To the contrary, Garcia said. “Parks can provide physical activity to reduce obesity, provide positive alternatives to gangs, crime, and violence. And parks bring people together. Parks are essential to quality of life.”
Most important for the stimulus plan, park construction will produce lots of jobs, said Garcia. Since most of America’s urban areas have far fewer parks and green spaces than affluent communities, park building should be a priority.
Hey, FDR was entirely clear on the importance of park-building as a jobs creating strategy, Garcia pointed out. “The New Deal included the construction of 8,000 parks and 40,000 schools and the Civilian Conservation Corps expanded open space all over the nation and, in so doing, put unemployed young men to work across the United States.”
Garcia told me that there are loads of existing park projects all over the U.S. that are “shovel ready” as the stimulus planners like to say.
“For instance in Los Angeles, there is already an LA River master plan in place. This is one of those “shovel ready” projects that would open up parkland along the 52 miles of the LA River. In doing so, it would create jobs for youth and adults.”
“The LA River is just one example,” he added. According to Garcia, there are like projects from coast to coast that could supply much-needed jobs the minute there is a go-ahead.
Garcia said the House version of the stimulus doesn’t forbid money for parks. So he hopes that the Congress will wake up to the fact that, along with infrastructure and renovations for energy efficiency, parks and schools are exactly what this stimulus bill should be funding.
September 17th, 2009 by 
Celeste Fremon
42 Comments »
