Many Calidfornia State Parks to lose?

[Paul Sumi]

Sorry, that is, "Many Calif State parks to CLOSE."

An AP story reports that up to 220 California state parks may close in an effort to cut budget costs. From the story:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090529/ap_on_...alifornia_parks

"'This is a worst-case scenario," said Roy Sterns, a spokesman at the state parks department. "If we can do less than this, we will try. But under the present proposal, this is it.'"

"The state's famed park system attracts nearly 80 million visitors a year. William Randolph Hearst's Castle on the Central Coast and a dozen other so-called moneymakers would remain open, as would many Southern California beaches that attract millions of visitors year round."

Potential closures include:   Lake Tahoe's Emerald Bay, Will Rogers' Southern California ranch, Humboldt Redwoods State Park (which boasts the world's tallest tree), Fort Ross State Historic Park,  Bodie State Historic Park, and Big Basin Redwoods.

Paul

[Paul Sumi]

Link to lists of PROPOSED closures and those that would remain open:

http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=712

Paul

[dalethorn]

California's a funny place. They have way, way more revenue per capita than most other places, yet it consistently gets "lost". Probably nothing anyone can do except start another recall, and maybe another ballot proposition.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

That's happening even here in Massachusetts. A number of state parks are closed, with "No Swimming" signs, and no lifeguards, but lots of people in there anyway.

Probably the tax money saved by not hiring lifeguards is more than made up for by overtime for the cops who are busy trying to keep people out of the parks.

[dalethorn]

Another thing that's odd here is, comparing California to Ohio -- California I think of as a tourist and outdoor activity state much more so than Ohio, yet despite Ohio's condition as a rust-belt state with declining population and drastically declining revenues, they not only haven't closed parks, they've actually spiffed them up and expanded them quite a lot since I left here in 1980 and came back last year.  How that California could place their state parks on a lower priority than Ohio should be an interesting fact to know.

[masl]

Another thing that's odd here is, comparing California to Ohio -- California I think of as a tourist and outdoor activity state much more so than Ohio, yet despite Ohio's condition as a rust-belt state with declining population and drastically declining revenues, they not only haven't closed parks, they've actually spiffed them up and expanded them quite a lot since I left here in 1980 and came back last year.  How that California could place their state parks on a lower priority than Ohio should be an interesting fact to know.

Part of it is "hit 'em where it hurts", growing up I recall that anytime the town budget got turned down the first items dropped were school buses and sports programs.  As governor it may be reasonable to look at a dollar you have and decide it's better spent elsewhere than what amounts to recreation, but it's hard not to suspect cynicism.  Having spent a little time out in SoCal, thoroughly enjoying the state park system, seems to me that they could double or even triple the fees to generate revenue and get the parks to pay for themselves.  Dare I say, even charge out-of-state folks (like me!) double what residents pay.
-Mark

[gdanmitchell]

California's a funny place. They have way, way more revenue per capita than most other places, yet it consistently gets "lost". Probably nothing anyone can do except start another recall, and maybe another ballot proposition.

That is a common misconception. Not true. The average tax load per California citizen is pretty to the average when compared to all US states.

Ballot propositions are a big part of the problem...

[dalethorn]

That is a common misconception. Not true. The average tax load per California citizen is pretty to the average when compared to all US states.
Ballot propositions are a big part of the problem...

I moved from Seal Beach to the outskirts of Akron Ohio and my taxes got a *lot* lower. Lower state income tax, lower sales tax, etc. And the parks here are not only open, they're well managed and have good security. California gets what it gets because of what people are willing to pay to live there. Pure competition. Ballot propositions are great democracy - we should have them everywhere.

[pluton]

Ballot propositions are great democracy - we should have them everywhere.

 Slightly off topic:
The direct initiative WAS a good idea back in 1910 when the Southern Pacific Railroad controlled the state government of Ca;  Unfortunately, like the national electoral college, it is now scientifically gamed and the issues marketed by advertising agencies;  many lame-brained laws and constitutional amendments get passed, such as: More spending PLUS lower taxes(stupid!), term-limits(increases the power of corporations and moneyed interests), 2/3 vote necessary to pass budget or increase taxes(guarantees legislative gridlock).  Some reasonable people say the initiative process can be modified to work better, but in it's present form(as Ca uses it) you don't want it.

[dalethorn]

Slightly off topic:
The direct initiative WAS a good idea back in 1910 when the Southern Pacific Railroad controlled the state government of Ca;  Unfortunately, like the national electoral college, it is now scientifically gamed and the issues marketed by advertising agencies;  many lame-brained laws and constitutional amendments get passed, such as: More spending PLUS lower taxes(stupid!), term-limits(increases the power of corporations and moneyed interests), 2/3 vote necessary to pass budget or increase taxes(guarantees legislative gridlock).  Some reasonable people say the initiative process can be modified to work better, but in it's present form(as Ca uses it) you don't want it.

I wanted to have a carefully considered reply here, and my logic tells me that the core problem is this:

Regardless of who is engineering the propositions (and I find it hard to believe that any major PR companies are doing so to *reduce* the take from taxpayers), the plain simple fact is that the overall taxes are too high right now.  Therefore, not having the tax reduction propositions would make California such taxaholics that they would lose business by the trainload.  One of the more conservative California reps, Tom McClintock I think, spelled it out on radio, saying you can calculate almost the exact point where the tax burden is too high and business leaves, reducing the overall intake, and thus defeating the point of raising taxes in the first place.

[joedecker]

The plain simple fact is that the overall taxes are too high right now.

"Too high" compared to what?  Too high for job growth?  Doesn't seem to have stopped Silicon Valley's growth the past 20 years.

The total tax burden, including all tax burdens on Californians, has been roughly speaking unchanged for 20 years.  Pretty much 10.5% +/- 0.3%. for the entire 20-year period including 1989 through 2008. Source: Tax Foundation.  Those figures close off with a 2008 figure that's dead-center in that range I gave. It was a bit lower than this for the decade before that (around 10%), and significantly higher than it is today in the late 1970s, where the number exceeded 11.5%.  

A common mistake that misstates Californian's tax burdens as a whole is to make use of Census figures. As the oft-cited Census figures for state tax burdens ignore property and other quote-local-unquote taxes.

If "too high" simply means "too high for you", hey, I hear ya.  Let me recommend Wyoming.  Pretty there, too.  They get a lot more federal assistance per capita than California does too, so you can enjoy the subsidies provided by the remaining "overtaxed" Californians, what's not to like?

Now, can we get back to photography, please?

[dalethorn]

"Too high" compared to what?  Too high for job growth?  Doesn't seem to have stopped Silicon Valley's growth the past 20 years.
The total tax burden, including all tax burdens on Californians, has been roughly speaking unchanged for 20 years.  Pretty much 10.5% +/- 0.3%. for the entire 20-year period including 1989 through 2008. Source: Tax Foundation.  Those figures close off with a 2008 figure that's dead-center in that range I gave. It was a bit lower than this for the decade before that (around 10%), and significantly higher than it is today in the late 1970s, where the number exceeded 11.5%.  
A common mistake that misstates Californian's tax burdens as a whole is to make use of Census figures. As the oft-cited Census figures for state tax burdens ignore property and other quote-local-unquote taxes.
If "too high" simply means "too high for you", hey, I hear ya.  Let me recommend Wyoming.  Pretty there, too.  They get a lot more federal assistance per capita than California does too, so you can enjoy the subsidies provided by the remaining "overtaxed" Californians, what's not to like?
Now, can we get back to photography, please?

I assume a lot of people on this forum aren't good with math.  For example, if Ohio takes x dollars per person and keeps up the infrastructure and parks very well, and California takes in 1.3 x dollars per person and can't, that's bad management, period.  Don't forget, everything is unit-price cheaper in the private sector when it's done in larger quantity, and California has 4 times the people that Ohio does.  But in spite of their staggering income, they can't make it.

It's simple math and logic, but that doesn't appeal to many people.