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:
**********************************************************************************************************************
1. The Park Closures Aren’t Legal.
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.
Of course, closing the parks is a bad idea.
We need to focus instead on 1) raising revenues; (2) preserving the “safety net” for public services and health care; (3) tap into any “rainy day” funds available; (4) legalize medical marijuana and (5) create excise taxes.
Anything that eliminates programs and services for the public – services which are vitally needed – is a BAD decision.
How about closing down the state Capitol in Sacramento for the summer and sending the so called “leaders” (including Ahnold and his crew) home without pay or benefits for a few months, they haven’t done squat anyway. And if we can get along without them for a few months then we can bring them back on a shortened work week, say 20 hours, just enough so that we don’t have to pay them unemployment benefits.
Celeste: …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.
Not if you sell or lease out the land, which is what should be done to wipe out a major part of the state debt. Then, you could collect property taxes on that land, too…a win-win-win situation!
Just think what developers and timber companies might pay for the land. Also, a WalMart could open near you so that you wouldn’t have to drive miles and miles to shop – saving gas and saving the world from global warming (cough, cough).
The “study” likely only considers direct costs (excluding indirect and fixed costs) vs. total revenue, much of which is assumed, wide-reaching, and not going directly into state coffers. If the parks were truly self-sustaining or profitable, then they wouldn’t be budget concerns.
Also, the “study” doesn’t consider opportunity costs or alternative uses of the tax money that might generate a better return on investment. Just think how much more profitable it would be to spend the park money on running illegal aliens out of the state and on keeping them out. Schools and hospitals would improve services and crime would go down.
The “study” also doesn’t appear to consider alternative and more profitable uses of the land. Don’t you know that hunters would spend more per visit than do hippies looking for world peace and nirvana?
Also, that “study” assumes that the visitors have no other recreational alternatives on which they can spend their entertainment dollars and disposable income in the state. That money will be spent, if not at the parks, so the state doesn’t really lose that money.
The “study” also doesn’t analyze the parks on an individual basis to determine the so-called profitability of each, which could justify the closing of selected parks. Do you think that businesses keep losing stores open just because the consolidated income statement shows a profit?
This so-called “study,” especially from a bunch of college students and professors who have never run a business and are liberal activists, are not of much use.
Celeste, how many times did you visit Topanga State Park last year and how much did you spend while in the park?
If the figures can’t really support keeping open all of the parks, then it’s time to brainwash and break-out the little Topanga kids to go back to the state capital.
don quixote, I’m at least as pissed as you are about the inability to get anything done in Sacramento, but these kinds of “punish the lawmakers” proposals are totally pointless. They have zero impact on the budget and they don’t put jobs in jeopardy, which is what we really want. What we need is a constitutional system with fewer veto points – one that allows the legislature to act and the executive to sign or reject. This will allow ordinary voters who aren’t caught up in the minutia to decide who to support and who to throw out. One legislative body and no supermajority needed for any annual tasks, that’s my platform for Emperor of California.
Oh, one more thing, are state parks more important than prisoners only being fed bologna sandwiches? Every time you take a hike in a park, just think about what the prisoners had to sacrifice for you do to that.
Mavis: They have zero impact on the budget…
Please refer to Comment #3. Why do you hate prisoners?
I know Woody’s just being an asshole, but I don’t think he actually understands what it means to run a profit, not a good sign for an accountant. The figures clearly CAN support keeping all the parks open. That’s what the study shows.
What he wants is for parks not just to be profitable, which is already an outrageous requirement, but to be more profitable than anything he can conceive of. That is, shall we say, an idiotic requirement for a public service. Ugh, I’ve just tasted troll bait.
Mavis, a good accountant knows that you can make figures say anything that you want them to say, and almost any accountant can see through non-accountants trying to fudge the books and studies.
When a state is on the verge of bankruptcy, it has to drop the standard mindset that got it there and consider alternative proposals, which include maximizing the potential return from major state assets. The fun and games are over.
You can only sell a piece of land once. Selling off State land won’t solve anything, it will just push the problem out into the future a slight amount.
I don’t think Woody actually wants California to solve any of its problems. He doesn’t even live in the state, and thus doesn’t have to live with the consequences of any of this, which makes it easy for him to offer his ludicrous commentary here.
Kevin, let me put solutions for California is terms that you might understand. Until you learn to grow up and act responsibly, you’re grounded and your allowance is cut off.
California’s biggest budget problem is Third World immigrants with lots of children.
The left’s loonies with no common sense will just call this right-wing-rhetoric, and discount the facts completely without even looking.
Even the liberal Sac Bee admits that at a minimum that California currently spends $5 billion per year in providing services to illegal aliens, while other studies that look deeper show over $10 billion in costs per year, more than 50 times the cost of maintaining the parks.
CA Budget:
40% k-12
30% Health and Welfare
10% Prisons
80% Of CA expenditures are directly related to population numbers
Illegal immigrants make up about 10% of the CA residents (3.3-million of 34 million), costing at least 8% of the entire budget, but because of their economic status and numerous children use more than then their numerical share of health, welfare, prisons and schools doubling the estimated cost closer to 16% of all money spent by the state. On the revenue side this same 10% only contributes less than 5%, leaving a huge hole in our state budget.
Additionally, Liberals also often don’t count the legal children of illegal’s, who fill schools, emergency rooms, welfare offices and prisons with non-English speaking U.S. citizens as well sending the above numbers even higher.
On top of the budget impact these 3.3 million illegal immigrants have taken jobs that Californians desperately need in this economic depression, which will likely extend for years to come.
http://www.sacbee.com/740/story/1962163.html
ihttp://www.sacbee.com/740/story/1962163.html
While at
the cost of illegal’s
But, before looking at any nu it doesn’t take a roc
— One out of Eight California residents being here illegally —
Consider the following:
illegals pay, and many of these
Please ignore the text after the link above to the SacBee.
A worth-repeating comment someone else made on another site….
OK So if the issue is “selling” off State and Govt’ owned properties? Why not sell substantial parcels to the Mexican cartels who keep shoving innocent Mexican citizens up here to clandestinely grow marijuana on private land? Then the State could relax the marijuana laws even more and tax the shit out of these invaders, get us out of bankruptcy and maybe force the cartels to clean up their environmental messes. The saying goes:” As goes CA so goes the Nation “.
An unorthadox, yet rational legislative move like this may serve to legalize marijuana on a National scale, lessen the bloodshed on our border, empty the prisons of non-violent criminals thereby loosening the grip of the huge Prison/Industrial complex and the fat Correctional Officer’s Union, and free up funds for social programs. This State, this Country has been mired in an outdated mindset that has only served to increase the coffers of repressive institutions. Legalize Pot!! There’s a “change” I’d vote for.
Most of the state park land was either donated to the state or purchased with money donated for the purpose of purchasing park land that will be open to the public. Selling this land is not an option. Besides, the total operating cost of our state parks is way under one tenth of one percent of the budget deficit. Closing our state parks will have no noticeable impact on the budget crisis.
Much of the maintenance work done in the state parks is performed by 13,000+ vulunteers, who repair historic structures, maintain trails, and perform interpretive functions. It is an outrage that state parks are one of the few departments being zeroed out of the budget. Everyone who loves and uses our parks needs to contact their state senator and assembly person and demand that all of the parks be kept open. State parks are not a luxury! They are as important as any other governmental funchtion.
California needs to balance its buget just like I do. I have to live within my means no matter how meager. No one can bail out California except for California. There will be much weaping, wailing, and knashing of teeth. Start by cutting the polititions. Give them IOU’s for their next paychecks.
Tell everyone to pull the plug on California. Sell all bonds related to California including corporate and municipal bonds. Don’t take a chance with your hard earned money. Why would anyone in their right mind lend money to a state that is bankrupt. You would be better off lending to your unemyployed relatives.
The biggest crybaby on the forum so far is the know-nothing liberal, Woody
Ive always thought they were brainless-he proves it
[…] I predicted, the state parks, which were threatened with mass closures, were one of the four line items that […]