SOS weekend for state parks in CA

[Blueberrydesk]

Wasn't sure where to post this, but I figured the parks are a resource.

http://www.calparks.org/takeaction/sos-weekend.html

I received an email that is begging for assistance. I'll make it a point to be out that weekend, but I wanted to pass this along to people who may not have received the email. I believe it's only sent to contributors.

Paul

[eric black]

Best of luck to all of you-a worthy cause

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Paul, thanks. I will be involved in this.

Jim

[walter23]

This is a good start, but instead of wearing a ribbon to try to convince other people to do something, ORGANIZE AND VOLUNTEER TO PERFORM PARK MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS DUTIES YOURSELF!

[Marko]

It IS a worthy cause, but I have one problem with this and other similar initiatives:

What is the objective? What is the short-term goal and what is the long-term goal?

It may feel good to wear a cute little ribbon saying "Save (insert your favorite project)" or "I support (insert your favorite project)", but what exactly does it accomplish in the end of the day when chanting is done and beer is ordered?

Make somebody aware? Who might that be? And once they do become aware, what do you propose they do with all that awareness?

How about start a ballot initiative to raise, say, gasoline taxes by a quarter or two a gallon and send that to a non-profit fund for maintaining the state parks? Would you put your money next to your ribbon?

Now that would be real support that our parks need. The parks are being closed because the state is in the hole and politicians can't (or won't) do anything about it other than cut the only good things that the state does for us all.

If you can't gather enough signatures or if the vote doesn't pass, would you be willing to double up the money, organize with the rest of us who would be willing to do it and start up a privately-run fund that would take care of it?

If so, count me in, by all means. I just don't want to play a weekend-warrior busybody with no outcome other than venting my spleen. I can do that on the Internet without wasting my weekend. :D

[Jim Fitzgerald]

It IS a worthy cause, but I have one problem with this and other similar initiatives:

What is the objective? What is the short-term goal and what is the long-term goal?

It may feel good to wear a cute little ribbon saying "Save (insert your favorite project)" or "I support (insert your favorite project)", but what exactly does it accomplish in the end of the day when chanting is done and beer is ordered?

Make somebody aware? Who might that be? And once they do become aware, what do you propose they do with all that awareness?

How about start a ballot initiative to raise, say, gasoline taxes by a quarter or two a gallon and send that to a non-profit fund for maintaining the state parks? Would you put your money next to your ribbon?

Now that would be real support that our parks need. The parks are being closed because the state is in the hole and politicians can't (or won't) do anything about it other than cut the only good things that the state does for us all.

If you can't gather enough signatures or if the vote doesn't pass, would you be willing to double up the money, organize with the rest of us who would be willing to do it and start up a privately-run fund that would take care of it?

If so, count me in, by all means. I just don't want to play a weekend-warrior busybody with no outcome other than venting my spleen. I can do that on the Internet without wasting my weekend. :D

I agree with this post. It is all about money! We the people need to make sure that the funds we donate are actually going to stay with the park service. I donate as much as I can and a portion of my print sales go to the parks. Money is what talks and ribbons and other cute things give people something to talk about. I think the intention is good but there needs to be more fund raising and involvement/awareness from the public. GIVE! Don't just talk about it. JUST DO IT!

Jim

[walter23]

It IS a worthy cause, but I have one problem with this and other similar initiatives:

What is the objective? What is the short-term goal and what is the long-term goal?

It may feel good to wear a cute little ribbon saying "Save (insert your favorite project)" or "I support (insert your favorite project)", but what exactly does it accomplish in the end of the day when chanting is done and beer is ordered?

Make somebody aware? Who might that be? And once they do become aware, what do you propose they do with all that awareness?

How about start a ballot initiative to raise, say, gasoline taxes by a quarter or two a gallon and send that to a non-profit fund for maintaining the state parks? Would you put your money next to your ribbon?

Now that would be real support that our parks need. The parks are being closed because the state is in the hole and politicians can't (or won't) do anything about it other than cut the only good things that the state does for us all.

If you can't gather enough signatures or if the vote doesn't pass, would you be willing to double up the money, organize with the rest of us who would be willing to do it and start up a privately-run fund that would take care of it?

If so, count me in, by all means. I just don't want to play a weekend-warrior busybody with no outcome other than venting my spleen. I can do that on the Internet without wasting my weekend. :D

Exactly, what this calls for is something tangible. A volunteer park maintenance brigade (think volunteer firefighters, but for maintenance of parks), or a similar aggressive initiative. Raising awareness is somewhat valuable, but a tangible effort will raise awareness as a side effect of doing something useful.

The time for demanding other people do things is long since past. We've experimented with that and seen how well it works. The average household watches, what, 4 hours of TV per day? Put that time to better use, if you love your parks so much!

[gary892]

I would certainly volunteer to perform maintenance in a state park for a weekend a month.
I can supply my own shovel, rake, gloves, dust mask, and trash bags.
The organization of weekly projects is what is needed.
Who does one contact to set this up and how does one gain access to said parks to perform the necessary tasks and who determines what needs to be done?
It really does need to be organized and people need to be made aware of when and where the cleanups will take place.
I can be counted on to help.

Gary

[Jim Ewins]

And why should auto users pay for me to use a park? USER Fees are the answer. If YOU want it YOU pay for it. Don't let the legislature siphon off park money for "social" causes.

[Vaughn]

Jim, I understand your point. However there is the concept that the mere exsistance of the parks benefit all the people of the State, not just the user. And perhaps the parks will benefit the family and future family members of a present day non-user.

Some of the benefits are difficult to measure -- the social value of open space, for example. Other values can be measured a little easier -- income benefit to the local communities derived for money spent by people coming to the parks...from local, cross-state, cross-country and international sources.

One advantage of a tax on goods (gasoline, camping supplies, et al) is that visitors to the state also help to support the parks and other infra-structure of the state. As opposed to an income tax-only system which taxes only residents and people visiting from out of state basically get to use public resources (roads, parks, etc) for free.

In fact, Oregon started to charge a higher fee for state park use to out-of-state residents since OR has no sales tax. One of the reasons I believe they stopped doing it was that near-by states started to charge Oregon residents more.

But in the end I see it as the same as education. People w/o kids still should be taxed to support education, since a well educated society benefits all.

Vaughn

[Jim Fitzgerald]

Vaughn, you make some good points. I try to do what I can to support the park system however I can. I just don't want our parks to be the scape goat of our elected officials.


Jim

[tgtaylor]

I just recieved the following good news:

Dear Thomas,

This afternoon held some “good news, bad news” for California’s state park system.

The bad news first – the Legislature’s Budget Conference Committee voted to adopt the Governor’s proposal to eliminate core, state funding for our state parks. But the good news - and it’s good!- is that the committee also voted to enact the State Park Access Pass, CSPF’s proposal from last year to institute a surcharge on vehicle license fees of non-commercial vehicles, in order to provide Californians with free day-use access to state parks and generate much-needed revenues for the system. The version adopted by the Budget Conference Committee today differs from last year’s proposal in that today’s action adopted a $15 fee, in order to gain permanent General Fund savings of approximately $143 million annually. In exchange for paying the fee, residents driving into state parks with a California license plate would receive free day-use entrance into state parks.

This is good news, but it's only one step toward a final budget victory. Since the vote was divided, this proposal still has a high hurdle to overcome, in order to be enacted.

$15 a year sounds like a bargain to me!!

[Blueberrydesk]

I received the same thing just now. Here's the link to the Cal Parks website for more info:

http://www.calparks.org/

$15 does indeed seem like a bargain. The question will be what do we get for that $15.

[Blueberrydesk]

After looking at this again, I don't know how good this is. They will add $15 a year to all non-commercial vehicle registrations. Ignoring the fact that California is already one of the most expensive states to license a vehicle in (my pickup is almost $300 a year to register), the separation of cost associated with the State Park system means that there will be almost no accountability for those funds. I can see what will happen, the state will take in $200 million a year and the parks will get their budgets cut below the support threshold to the point where many of them will be effectively 'closed' anyway.

[Merg Ross]

I just recieved the following good news:

Dear Thomas,

This afternoon held some “good news, bad news” for California’s state park system.

The bad news first – the Legislature’s Budget Conference Committee voted to adopt the Governor’s proposal to eliminate core, state funding for our state parks. But the good news - and it’s good!- is that the committee also voted to enact the State Park Access Pass, CSPF’s proposal from last year to institute a surcharge on vehicle license fees of non-commercial vehicles, in order to provide Californians with free day-use access to state parks and generate much-needed revenues for the system. The version adopted by the Budget Conference Committee today differs from last year’s proposal in that today’s action adopted a $15 fee, in order to gain permanent General Fund savings of approximately $143 million annually. In exchange for paying the fee, residents driving into state parks with a California license plate would receive free day-use entrance into state parks.

This is good news, but it's only one step toward a final budget victory. Since the vote was divided, this proposal still has a high hurdle to overcome, in order to be enacted.

$15 a year sounds like a bargain to me!!

In my opinion, a sad day. I speak as a member of the California State Parks Foundation and a contributor. Be prepared, should this legislation pass, to be a visitor to crowded parks such as you have not encountered or imagined. Yes, $15 a year is a bargain. Currently, the day-use fee for Point Lobos is $10. For a mere five dollars more annually, every vehicle in the state will have free day-use privileges to all of the parks. Perhaps that is good, the parks are for everyone. However, I would suggest that your state park experience might be very different from past years if this legislation is adopted.

[Marko]

After looking at this again, I don't know how good this is. They will add $15 a year to all non-commercial vehicle registrations. Ignoring the fact that California is already one of the most expensive states to license a vehicle in (my pickup is almost $300 a year to register), the separation of cost associated with the State Park system means that there will be almost no accountability for those funds. I can see what will happen, the state will take in $200 million a year and the parks will get their budgets cut below the support threshold to the point where many of them will be effectively 'closed' anyway.

I'm afraid you're right - this is beginning to look like a bait-and-switch scheme, and a pretty crude one at that.

I would be happy to pay additional tax provided that there is an accountable and verifiable mechanism for channeling the funds expressly for the purpose.

But accountability is the last thing politicians want because somebody would have to answer for the huge hole we're in despite the highest taxes we already pay. Much easier this way and besides, they have just created another grab bag for them to fiddle with at will.

Sad indeed.

[Merg Ross]

I'm afraid you're right - this is beginning to look like a bait-and-switch scheme, and a pretty crude one at that.

I would be happy to pay additional tax provided that there is an accountable and verifiable mechanism for channeling the funds expressly for the purpose.

But accountability is the last thing politicians want because somebody would have to answer for the huge hole we're in despite the highest taxes we already pay. Much easier this way and besides, they have just created another grab bag for them to fiddle with at will.

Sad indeed.

Yes, accountability is a major concern; I am afraid that you may be correct in stating that this is another grab bag for the politicians to use at their discretion. Surely not good news for the California State Park system.

[Steve M Hostetter]

it is wrong that only ppl with money can visit state and national parks.. These parks should be available to everyone...
I bet if Arnold Schwarzenegger was to auction off just his collection of shoes he could single handedly kick the problem in the butt.. :D

[Wallace_Billingham]

What they should do with the California Parks as well as all State, and National Parks is to transfer ownership of the parks to a Non-Profit Trust. These nonprofit trusts would get the parks for free, and never have to pay taxes on the property or any revenue they collect.

Then each Park would set a user fee for the people who actually use the park. These fees would pay for the parks operation. This would save the State and Federal Governments Billions and take politics away from the park system at the State and Local Levels.

The trusts would be mandated as to what they could and could not do, and if they did not live up to the mandate, ownership would be revoked and transfered to a new trust.

[Merg Ross]

What they should do with the California Parks as well as all State, and National Parks is to transfer ownership of the parks to a Non-Profit Trust. These nonprofit trusts would get the parks for free, and never have to pay taxes on the property or any revenue they collect.

Then each Park would set a user fee for the people who actually use the park. These fees would pay for the parks operation. This would save the State and Federal Governments Billions and take politics away from the park system at the State and Local Levels.

The trusts would be mandated as to what they could and could not do, and if they did not live up to the mandate, ownership would be revoked and transfered to a new trust.

Good thought. I was thinking along the same lines this morning. Anything we can do to get the parks out of the hands of the politicians will benefit all. A user fee seems logical, not a surcharge for the privilege (or necessity) of owning a non-commercial vehicle.

[Marko]

What they should do with the California Parks as well as all State, and National Parks is to transfer ownership of the parks to a Non-Profit Trust. These nonprofit trusts would get the parks for free, and never have to pay taxes on the property or any revenue they collect.

Then each Park would set a user fee for the people who actually use the park. These fees would pay for the parks operation. This would save the State and Federal Governments Billions and take politics away from the park system at the State and Local Levels.

The trusts would be mandated as to what they could and could not do, and if they did not live up to the mandate, ownership would be revoked and transfered to a new trust.

I agree with all of this except for the ownership part. The Trust should be given the management rights but not the ownership itself, because then the parks would effectively cease to be "public" and so would the need for accountability.

[Vaughn]

What they should do with the California Parks as well as all State, and National Parks is to transfer ownership of the parks to a Non-Profit Trust...

An interesting idea to be sure, but not a very good one, IMO. Sounds like a good way to add a bunch of politics into the parks rather than take it away. The state would still have to have a Parks agency to manage the Trusts, yet receive no income from the parks to pay for it. There would be increased costs to manage such things as water rights and water quality, wildlife, land use issues, et al.. Instead of the state working with its own to work out solutions, the state would be dealing with a multitude of private companies.

In some cases the state could not give (or sell) the land to anyone. Much of the redwood parkland was originally bought by the Save the Redwood League and then given to the state with specific restrictions that it not be turned over to private ownership.

But in the end, parks belong to everyone and benefit everyone -- not just those who enter them. It would be like charging the full cost to parents for their kids to attend public schools -- society as a whole benefits from an educated population, thus society as a whole is taxed to support the public school system.

Great Britian has the National Land Trust that has been buying up land, especially coastal land, and gives free access to the lands. But one can not photograph on those lands and try to sell the images...the Trust wishes to be the one to profit from any images taken on its property.

Vaughn

[Marko]

Good points, Vaughn.

[Wallace_Billingham]

An interesting idea to be sure, but not a very good one, IMO. Sounds like a good way to add a bunch of politics into the parks rather than take it away. The state would still have to have a Parks agency to manage the Trusts, yet receive no income from the parks to pay for it. There would be increased costs to manage such things as water rights and water quality, wildlife, land use issues, et al.. Instead of the state working with its own to work out solutions, the state would be dealing with a multitude of private companies.

In some cases the state could not give (or sell) the land to anyone. Much of the redwood parkland was originally bought by the Save the Redwood League and then given to the state with specific restrictions that it not be turned over to private ownership.

But in the end, parks belong to everyone and benefit everyone -- not just those who enter them. It would be like charging the full cost to parents for their kids to attend public schools -- society as a whole benefits from an educated population, thus society as a whole is taxed to support the public school system.

Great Britian has the National Land Trust that has been buying up land, especially coastal land, and gives free access to the lands. But one can not photograph on those lands and try to sell the images...the Trust wishes to be the one to profit from any images taken on its property.

Vaughn

We already have a similar program in many states with toll roads, toll bridges and prisons. The system works very well.

The costs with such a system for oversight are very small compared with the costs of having the state run them all.

[Wallace_Billingham]

Parks should not charge for normal visitation, only added amenities that actually require some type of improvement or supervision. No one should have to pay to get in a park.

but we all pay in the form of taxes. Why not just pay for what we actually use? Why should I as a tax payer pay for a park I will never use? All activites in parks require some type of improvement and supervision. I have never visited a park where I did not park my car somewhere, where they did not have to mow grass, maintain roads, provide security, provide water to drink, restrooms to use, maintain trails, provide for garbage collection etc.

[Vaughn]

We already have a similar program in many states with...prisons. The system works very well.

That is a matter of opinion, not fact. Just as one example, two judges pleades guilty and were convicted of accepting bribes to send kids to privately-run juvenile detention centers.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/pam/Victim_Witness/Luzerne_County_Corruption/Ciavarella_Conahan/ciavarella_conahan_index.html

As with prisons and parks, the profit motive does not always serve the best interest of the citizens.

Vaughn

[Wallace_Billingham]

That is a matter of opinion, not fact. Just as one example, two judges pleades guilty and were convicted of accepting bribes to send kids to privately-run juvenile detention centers.

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/pam/Victim_Witness/Luzerne_County_Corruption/Ciavarella_Conahan/ciavarella_conahan_index.html

As with prisons and parks, the profit motive does not always serve the best interest of the citizens.

Vaughn

You are right, we all know that Government run programs and agencies are never corrupt and always serve the best interest of the citizens they serve. I mean you never hear of a Governor, Senator, Congressman, Judge or any Government employee that is not 100% above board in everything they do.

Look at public housing that program is so well run I am sure you would want to live in a housing project in any major city in the US right? Or look at the public (government run) school system in our Nations Capital. That program is so well run that President Obama (and Clinton before him) sends his kids to private school.

Yep Government run agencies are so well run that we should never consider anything else.

[Vaughn]

Well, I did link to two judges that are now in jail for corruption. And when a public employee gets caught stripping his/her agency's assets, they don't get bonuses like a CEO, they get tossed in jail.

If DC's public school system was the best in the country, Presidents would more likely still send their kids to private school for security reasons.

So thanks for agreeing!;)

Vaughn

[Marko]

You are right, we all know that Government run programs and agencies are never corrupt and always serve the best interest of the citizens they serve. I mean you never hear of a Governor, Senator, Congressman, Judge or any Government employee that is not 100% above board in everything they do.

Look at public housing that program is so well run I am sure you would want to live in a housing project in any major city in the US right? Or look at the public (government run) school system in our Nations Capital. That program is so well run that President Obama (and Clinton before him) sends his kids to private school.

Yep Government run agencies are so well run that we should never consider anything else.

Yes, and GM, Chrysler, Enron et al were such shining examples of impeccable ethics and ample ability of private businesses, not to mention AIG and the rest of the financial crowd, that we should never consider trusting our money to anybody else... ;)

Public housing sure beats living under a bridge for those who have no other options. There are some beautiful country clubs over here, and Beverly Hills and Malibu are full of people with huge distaste for rubbing elbows with the plebs and enough money to afford their own little private parks.

State parks are (were) the outlet for the rest of us. I don't know about you, but I certainly wouldn't want to have some minimum-wage rent-a-cop telling me what I can or cannot do with my camera the next time I visit.

[tgtaylor]

In my opinion, a sad day. I speak as a member of the California State Parks Foundation and a contributor. Be prepared, should this legislation pass, to be a visitor to crowded parks such as you have not encountered or imagined. Yes, $15 a year is a bargain. Currently, the day-use fee for Point Lobos is $10. For a mere five dollars more annually, every vehicle in the state will have free day-use privileges to all of the parks. Perhaps that is good, the parks are for everyone. However, I would suggest that your state park experience might be very different from past years if this legislation is adopted.

For most state parks there will be minimal, if any at all, change in park attendance. Most people have no idea where their tax/fee dollars go and, in any case, are not the "outdoors" type. Those parks located near on in metropolitan centers will surely see some increase but there again the "outdoor types" among them are already going.

The proposal benefits me and that's why I'm for it.

[Wallace_Billingham]

State parks are (were) the outlet for the rest of us. I don't know about you, but I certainly wouldn't want to have some minimum-wage rent-a-cop telling me what I can or cannot do with my camera the next time I visit.

We already have a bunch of rules and regulations in our parks as well as society at large of what we can and cannot do with our cameras.

The reality is that the current system of funding parks in the State of California and elsewhere is broken and is not working, and we should be looking at all available options.

The people of California have made it very clear that they don't want a tax hike so where is the money to run the parks going to come from? Should we continue to borrow money from China that our children and grandchildren will have to pay back so that we can go to a Park and not pay a user fee? Or should we just close the parks?

In my city we have a very nice Zoo that is run by a non profit group. I pay $75 a year to be a member so that my family can go there as often as we like. My in-laws only go once a year and just pay a nominal fee at the gate when they enter. The zoo also has several free weekends a year where people can go for free, and they let low-income shool children get in for free for school field trips. When the Zoo built a new building for the big cats last year they used donated funds that they had raised to do so. This is a great system that works very well. The people that want to use and support the zoo can do so, the people that don't do not have to.

[Steve M Hostetter]

you can't treat everything like it is corp america.. leave the parks in the hands of the people.. Parks are different then prisons and zoos,, many have several agencies running them, many has thousands of acres of national forest which would include fire fighters, forest managment, which includes logging ...
You'd end up having the parks run by ppl that know nothing about fragile eco systems that took the park service one hundred years of trial and error to maintain properly..
Once the parks are in private hands you'd have absolutly no say as an individual about the parks welfare
How will you regulate hunting and who benefits from the sale of hunting license..

They would end up charging whatever they want and then if they so decide they will sell off whats left of the old growth forest(because it's private property now) then build a huge resort and casino in it's place or develop it for upper class housing

Also,, you as a citizen can venture onto any public land (forest) and not be tresspassing.. You can enter a national forest(on foot) free of charge because you own the land

[Marko]

We already have a bunch of rules and regulations in our parks as well as society at large of what we can and cannot do with our cameras.

Yes, we do. Try explaining that to the rent-a-cop who keeps insisting that you can't use your camera or your tripod because of "the 9/11 law"... Or worse, the local cop. There have been numerous examples, just google it.

In other words, if we give ownership of the parks to any entity, it will almost inevitably try to micro-manage things in the way none of us will like, and the private corporations are the worst, because the only things that ultimately matter to them are profit, image and liability.


The reality is that the current system of funding parks in the State of California and elsewhere is broken and is not working, and we should be looking at all available options.

The people of California have made it very clear that they don't want a tax hike so where is the money to run the parks going to come from? Should we continue to borrow money from China that our children and grandchildren will have to pay back so that we can go to a Park and not pay a user fee? Or should we just close the parks?

Yes, the system is very much broken and we should indeed look at all viable options.

It is not so much about not wanting a tax hike, it is about not giving these same inept and/or corrupt fatcats yet more of our money to squander at will. Speaking for myself, and I believe that many others also think along the same lines, I wouldn't mind paying additional tax for a worthy cause, but only if, and I can't emphasize this enough: only if a method of strict oversight and accountability is put in place that would guarantee that the money would go only to the designated cause.

Wholesale to private interests is no option either. There are a few areas of such overwhelming import to the society as a whole that they should be kept separate from commerce. Every single one of them which we failed to keep out of corporate hands is now in deep crisis and disrepair, starting with education and over to health care. The least that tells us is that we ought to stop and think hard and fast about what are we doing and how do we get out instead of adding more to the casualty list.

[Wallace_Billingham]

Yes, we do. Try explaining that to the rent-a-cop who keeps insisting that you can't use your camera or your tripod because of "the 9/11 law"... Or worse, the local cop. There have been numerous examples, just google it.

Are not local cops part of the government? I really fail to see your point here that keeping the parks government run makes this situation any better.


In other words, if we give ownership of the parks to any entity, it will almost inevitably try to micro-manage things in the way none of us will like, and the private corporations are the worst, because the only things that ultimately matter to them are profit, image and liability.

Don't know where the idea came into play that a for profit corporation should own, manage, and run parks.




Yes, the system is very much broken and we should indeed look at all viable options.
It is not so much about not wanting a tax hike, it is about not giving these same inept and/or corrupt fatcats yet more of our money to squander at will. Speaking for myself, and I believe that many others also think along the same lines, I wouldn't mind paying additional tax for a worthy cause, but only if, and I can't emphasize this enough: only if a method of strict oversight and accountability is put in place that would guarantee that the money would go only to the designated cause.

Is that not what a tax hike does by giving money to the government. The numbers came out today and the unemployemnt rate in California is by far the highest in the nation. So you have far less people people paying income tax, and the people have voted to not have a tax hike. So you can have the state borrow money from China so that our kids and grandkids can pay for us to use a park. Or you can have the state close parks, or you can have a user fee.


Wholesale to private interests is no option either. There are a few areas of such overwhelming import to the society as a whole that they should be kept separate from commerce. Every single one of them which we failed to keep out of corporate hands is now in deep crisis and disrepair, starting with education and over to health care. The least that tells us is that we ought to stop and think hard and fast about what are we doing and how do we get out instead of adding more to the casualty list.

This is where we are going to have to agree to disagree. To quote Ronald Regan "Government is not the answer to our problem, Government is the probelm"

States are very much strapped for cash now and will only continue to do so. Once states run out of ideas for new revenue such as lotteries, casinos, new taxes, and borrowing at higher and higher interest rates they will be left with the idea of selling assets that they own. The first step will be to close the parks, the next step will be sell the parks. There is a lot of timber, oil, gas, water, as well as prime realestate in our park systems. There are also a lot of developers with a lot of lobby power that would like to get their hands on this. If you are a politician would you rather raise taxes and be hated by the voters or sell off a park to an Oil Company for a Billion Dollars that 99% of your voter base does not use or care about?

That is why transfering the parks to a non-profit group is a good idea since this group would not be able to sell the land, and would be run by local people who care about the park. Most parks in this country already have nonprofit booster groups that they work with.

For example this thread was started to promote such a group
http://www.calparks.org/whoweare/

I would much rather have such a group manage and run parks than use the current system, but that is just me.

[Marko]

Are not local cops part of the government? I really fail to see your point here that keeping the parks government run makes this situation any better.

Just google "cops and photographers" or something along those lines. It it is the rangers that provide enforcement in national parks, not local cops. Different goals, different attitude.



Don't know where the idea came into play that a for profit corporation should own, manage, and run parks.

Your example were the prisons, which are run by private corporations. For-profit ones.

I said that giving ownership to any entity would be a bad idea and added that corporate ownership would be the worst.


So you can have the state borrow money from China so that our kids and grandkids can pay for us to use a park. Or you can have the state close parks, or you can have a user fee.

I really don't see what does China have to do with all of this? :confused:


This is where we are going to have to agree to disagree. To quote Ronald Regan "Government is not the answer to our problem, Government is the probelm"

States are very much strapped for cash now and will only continue to do so. Once states run out of ideas for new revenue such as lotteries, casinos, new taxes, and borrowing at higher and higher interest rates they will be left with the idea of selling assets that they own. The first step will be to close the parks, the next step will be sell the parks. There is a lot of timber, oil, gas, water, as well as prime realestate in our park systems. There are also a lot of developers with a lot of lobby power that would like to get their hands on this. If you are a politician would you rather raise taxes and be hated by the voters or sell off a park to an Oil Company for a Billion Dollars that 99% of your voter base does not use or care about?

Ronald Reagan? Yes, this is exactly where we are going to have to agree to disagree, lest we really start talking about deregulation and lobbying and privatization of public assets and oil companies and such... And if we do that, we would inevitably come to the point of calculating how much tax money had W and DED wasted over in Iraq. Which was another fine example of letting non-government entities manage what is traditionally government's job.

Come on, let's be serious!


That is why transfering the parks to a non-profit group is a good idea since this group would not be able to sell the land, and would be run by local people who care about the park. Most parks in this country already have nonprofit booster groups that they work with.

I think I stated it quite clearly that I don't object to non-profit organization managing the parks - if you read previous posts, you may notice that I mentioned a non-profit trust way in the beginning.

What I am objecting to is transferring the ownership of the parks to any entity. The parks belong to us, it is just a question who should we hire to manage them and how.

[Wallace_Billingham]

Just google "cops and photographers" or something along those lines. It it is the rangers that provide enforcement in national parks, not local cops. Different goals, different attitude.

Is this not a thread about State Parks, I was unaware that National Park Rangers provide law enforcement in California State Parks. You seem to think that the government runs things very well so why are you against the Local Cops? They are 100% government run and enforce the laws established by the Government.


Your example were the prisons, which are run by private corporations. For-profit ones.

I said that giving ownership to any entity would be a bad idea and added that corporate ownership would be the worst.

The examples I gave were toll roads, bridges, prisons and zoos. I know of several prisons that are run by non profit groups, they are not all money grabing corportate profit centers. I also know of many toll roads and bridges that are not owned by the states or the federal government, as well as many zoos all over the United States.



I think I stated it quite clearly that I don't object to non-profit organization managing the parks - if you read previous posts, you may notice that I mentioned a non-profit trust way in the beginning.

What I am objecting to is transferring the ownership of the parks to any entity. The parks belong to us, it is just a question who should we hire to manage them and how.

Transfering ownership of parks to a non-profit trust keeps them out of the hands of politicians. You and I both agree that the Government wastes tons of money, money gets wasted by both Republicans and Democrats at a very alarming rate. We currently borrow trillions of dollars from China because our Government will not control spending. When China stops loaning us money where are we going to get it from? Don't think for a minute that they will be above selling parklands.

But anyway arguing about it on an obscure board online is not going to solve anything.

[Marko]

You seem to think that the government runs things very well

I do? :confused:

You know, a discussion only makes sense if both parties accurately read what is written and use well-intended and rational arguments. This, on the other hand, is beginning to shape up as talk-radio kind of thing, and I have precisely zero desire to participate in such spectacles.


Transfering ownership of parks to a non-profit trust keeps them out of the hands of politicians. You and I both agree that the Government wastes tons of money, money gets wasted by both Republicans and Democrats at a very alarming rate. We currently borrow trillions of dollars from China because our Government will not control spending. When China stops loaning us money where are we going to get it from? Don't think for a minute that they will be above selling parklands.

But anyway arguing about it on an obscure board online is not going to solve anything.

Constantly using China as some sort of bogeyman isn't to help things either.

So, I will agree to disagree and bow out.