Shortsighted cuts not the answer

We have only a fraction of our natural resources remaining? What a statement of ignorance and bias. First of all, most of the local state parks are only used from about the first week of July through the Labor Day weekend. Even in the month of June the use is very light. For the remaining nine and a half months the parks are virtually deserted. We pay park staff a full year salary for about two and a half months of actual work.

Tourisim as a major source of economic dollars? What a laugh.

Maybe what they should do is leave open the 2 most popular (well used) parks. Shut the others and cut the staff.

we have a three month, somewhat pitiful (weather-wise to most vacationing people) tourist season. that is not a very good outlook for the supposed central theme of the new "diverse" economy. the state has made it more cost effective to NOT shop/harvest locally for the wood to build houses for our citizens. there has been no transition to a more diverse economy just an abandonment of our local industries and a reliance on others to supply our resource needs. Needs that place CA at the top of consumerism in the US. In a state that has some of the most abundant and diverse natural resources.

So negative here.

The cost to keep the parks open is a pittance, 180 million dollars for the next 2 years. The cost to reopen the parks after closure will be twice that at least. It just doesn't make sense to me to cut the parks budget.

If you really want savings, cut the school year a week, save 6 billion.

P.S. I use the parks year round.

Does anybody know who wrote this drivel?

I am so tired of critics criticising government bodies trying to balance budgets, be it the governor, the state legislature, the board of stupidvisors, the city council or the school district who are being taken to task.

It is easy to say "Don't cut that, its essential" or "Don't cut this, its popular".

That a coward can say. Give alternatives & then your opinion has merit.

Oh, what are your alternatives? You act as if you have answers?
Show us or don't complain about others with "YOUR OPINION".

Friends of mine who work on the Avenue of the Giants say that the recent economic crisis has been good for them. People are enjoying camping and shorter drives for vacationing. This will change if the state parks close.

Hello? I am 100% in agreement with every point made
in your article. Why others don't understand the true value of the state park system is beyond me. The thought of any of CA's parks closing because of our government's over spending is infuriating. Not to mention the other cuts to the disabled and elderly who will lose their independance and become instutionalized. This is another issue completly but one that will end up costing the state billions more by committing these people to 24 hour care instead of allowing them the dignity of remain in their homes. I encourage the author to send copies of your article to the governor, senators and anyone who will listen. You have definately inspired me to write one myself.

So glad the Times is seeing how important our state parks are to the tourist economy here; and yet the Times was pushing to cut into Richardson Grove. Now with the threat of closure, I am glad the Times is seeing the light.

My friends said, in their trying to book a campground, they are all full and they could only get 5 days in a row at one place. They will go from campground to campground instead of staying one place for their extended vacation. Camping is becoming very popular again with this economy slump; it is the only recreation a family can afford these days.

Keep the parks open. Contact Save the Redwoods League who is working keep the California State Parks open, and stop the cutting into Richardson Grove. Visit your State Parks and see how busy they really are. I have recently and there are people smiling and enjoying the trails, swimming, and lovely little shops with specialty items about the redwoods or other fun items. These tourists eat in our restaurants, stay in our motels, and spend money in our shops, besides also camping in the State Parks.

Donate $5 or $10 or more to Parks and Recreation to show your good faith (put your money where your mouth is). Save Richardson Grove by telling Caltrans (and all elected officials) we don't need their project that will cost millions of dollars, when slowing down to 25 mph will solve it, and perhaps a signal to allow houses and extra wide loads to pass single file. We count on this tourist industry and take pride in the beauty of this untouched entrance to Humboldt County.

Cut the benefits of prisoners, cut the pay and let Congress pay for their own benefits and do not extend their pay and benefits past their time of "service." Currently Congress gets $174,000 or more, plus benefits and pay/benefits for life. Cut the hours of all state workers, rather than eliminating their positions.

1) priorities folks. Closing the parks isn't being done because it is a "good" thing but because it is necessary in budget cuts given that Sacramento has screwed up for a very long time and we are out of money.

2) If we hadn't driven all business and industry out of this county, we wouldn't have to rely on tourism.

3) McFly and Mystified - organize enough volunteers and maybe some of the parks may be able to remain open that way. But get a grip, there isn't the money to continue doing all of this and until it gets fixed with some real solutions, these draconian things are the only thing keeping the state from bankruptcy.

Whatever other arguments may exist about closing the parks, there is one essential fact: for every $1 in general fund spending State Parks generates $2.35 in general fund income. That's a pretty good rate of return and negates the stated reason for closing them. It's simple - this closure makes no sense.

Its simple wrote:

Whatever other arguments may exist about closing the parks, there is one essential fact: for every $1 in general fund spending State Parks generates $2.35 in general fund income. That's a pretty good rate of return and negates the stated reason for closing them. It's simple - this closure makes no sense.

Then you put up the money for it. The rest of us don't have it. Don't you get it? This is unsustainable as it is currently running. What part of that can not get thru your head?

anonymous wrote:

<quoted text>
Then you put up the money for it. The rest of us don't have it. Don't you get it? This is unsustainable as it is currently running. What part of that can not get thru your head?

Trying not to be antagonistic but what part of "the parks basically pay for themselves" don't you get.

How about cutting 50% of overhead, that alone would save the state billions. How about we get rid of some of the freaking contracts that provide nothing for the state, wow!

How about requiring state vehicles be filled with gas/deisel at habibs instead of paying 50 cents more per gallon at the majors.There are billions in waste that can be cut from state government without touching programs that actually pay for themselves.

Sure, a lot of cuts will hurt the "well-to-do" butt I personally could give a fecal matter about them. It's the working class that I care about and that in a nut shell is all this is about Arnold wants to screw the middle class because we said no to his taxe increases.

Good night sir....

Goodness Gracious, and great balls of fire! I am in agreement with Middle of the Road.

the middle class is taking it in the shorts on this one.

If they close one damn park....I swear...

So they're proposing to make this very visible and very painful cut, eliminate the Nations's foremost State Park system (Abraham Lincoln gave CA State Parks Yosemite in 1864, before there was a National Park Service) to wipe out less than 1% of the deficit (Not the budget, the deficit). In the face of facts detailing how it will actually lead to a net loss of revenue.
Not to mention the fact that, at least locally, the parks serve as a great stream of money coming in; in the form of grants and other non-budgeted outside moneys (California gets back 78 cents on every dollar of FEDERAL tax collected; in 2005 this meant nearly 50 billion extra dollars leaving the state never to return). State Parks brings some of that Federal money back home in a non-budget visible fashion in the form of grants, FEMA, other stuff). This FEDERAL money goes into the local economy; employees, including seasonal employees, local vendors and contractors. Does not cost the CA taxpayer a penny so it doesn't show up on their balance sheets.
No, this move will do nothing to solve the State budget problem. Get that, absolutely nothing, in fact it is proven it will make it worse. But, it is highly visible, and will hopefully get people "fired up" to support higher taxes and reduced services in areas that will be meaningful to the budget.
There are a number of simple ways to reduce the deficit, and a number of simple, potentially alternative ways to finance State Parks. But it is more politically exedient to throw them under the bus to make a lot of noise and take focus off the other things that might end up getting cut.
It's also a feeble attemot at an end run to "privatize" parks, to contract out their operations to a more efficient contract basis. All of which is fine and good until you realize that only a tiny fraction of the land base that comprises our State Parks actually sees much public use, yet the balance must also be protected and maintained (and is a critical element to the Department's mission).

Politics Politics wrote:

There are a number of simple ways to reduce the deficit, and a number of simple, potentially alternative ways to finance State Parks.

I sure hope your letter to Sacramento includes all these strategies & alternatives.

Once again, we have the repetition of the falsehood that our State Legislature will need suggestions about how to save the Parks, improve efficiency, or cut waste. Each elected "representative" knows them all and is determined to ignore common sense to tax more and spend more, certainly to satisfy the corrupt demands of many of our bloggers. Their pay, their staff empires, and their Union pacs are locked in. So get over it, public, recall them.

Gdog Eka wrote:

<quoted text>
I sure hope your letter to Sacramento includes all these strategies & alternatives.

Reduce Spending across the board. Say, okay, here is our revenue, it is 84% of what we need, so everyone gets 84% of what they had last year (or were budgeted last year). Strategy to fund State Parks: include an added vehicle registration fee (tax if you want to call it that, 10 bucks per vehicle), and then make CA State Park day use free for all California residents.
Vehicle license fees are a sensitive topic; they're one of the reasons Gray Davis got recalled; he tried to bring the VLF back into line with what they were under liberal "tax and spend" governors like Pete Wilson, George Deukmejian, and Ronald Reagan after he (Davis) reduced it...At least this time, CA residents would get something tangible for their extra money.