Governors response to letter protesting park closures

OSCAR · Post by **OSCAR** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 12:00 am

Thank you for writing to me about funding for our state parks system. Your input is
important to me during these challenging times.

California's natural beauty is renowned throughout the world, and I have made it my
priority to protect our environment so future generations of Californians can continue to
experience and enjoy what we have all come to love. Our state parks provide a fantastic
introduction to the California experience and help bring our residents and visitors
closer to our landscapes.

Unfortunately, the state cannot continue to bear the costs of supporting every program.
Believe me when I say that these cuts have been the hardest decisions of my career as
Governor, but we are in the midst of the greatest economic crisis since the Great
Depression. Our revenues for the coming year are at least 27 percent below where they
were projected to be just two short years ago. We now face a shortfall that has grown to
$24.3 billion, and the people of California have made their voice clear: they want the
state to live within its means and solve its problems through spending cuts and not tax
increases.

To help manage our budget shortfall, I have proposed eliminating General Fund support for
the Department of Parks and Recreation. I understand that these cuts will impact not
only the lives of our park employees but the millions of park visitors who visit these
national treasurers every year. In spite of these General Fund cuts, though, I will work
to keep as many parks open as possible with funding from user fees. It may require
raising entry and camping fees, expanding partnerships with local government and
non-profit groups, and seeking additional creative ways to support our system in the
future.

As I work with my partners in the Legislature to find solutions to these problems, know I
will keep your thoughts in mind. Working together, I believe we can weather this storm
and start the slow but steady march back toward prosperity.

Sincerely,

Arnold Schwarzenegger

abinder · Post by **abinder** » Sat Jun 13, 2009 8:49 pm

All the talk of parks closure is just a political ploy; just trying to pressure others into making the budget balance.

Typical politician threats with nothing to stand on.

OSCAR · Post by **OSCAR** » Sun Jun 14, 2009 9:09 am

I hope you're right .It would be terrible to lose any or all of our flying parks.

stebbins · Post by **stebbins** » Sun Jun 14, 2009 3:36 pm

abinder wrote:All the talk of parks closure is just a political ploy; just trying to pressure others into making the budget balance.

Typical politician threats with nothing to stand on.

I also hope you are right. I'm not convinced though. The wording of the letter that I got from Buck McKeon was quite clear. It boiled down to: "These are tough times. Government is too big. Parks cost money. Cut the Parks. Get over it." (And yes, the wording is mine, but that's what it meant.) The letter flat-out ignored the fact (stated in my letter!) that the State makes money on the parks.

There was no acknowledgment that the parks actually make the state money. Ideology (and the politics of looking like you are cutting) are starting to trump reason. If the parks do make money for the State, as the State itself has said, then it is just foolish to close them when we are in a budget crunch. That message alone should win the day, in any rational argument. I think that whatever reason* used to be in Sacramento has fled during this current fiscal crisis.

But, please, please, write to your State Representative, Senator and the Governor. Whatever chance we have, it is surely smaller if we just give up. And emphasize that the State makes money on the parks.

* We may disagree on how much reason there was, but whatever it was, it is gone now, I think. Or mostly so. I mean, if one wants to have lower taxes, shouldn't one want to keep a money-making operation of the State open?

Brad Hall · Post by **Brad Hall** » Sun Jun 14, 2009 4:14 pm

George is right on on this subject. I think the letters from the Gov. and other lawmakers so far really suck. I also think that thousands of letters from concerned pilots and citizens will carry some weight. It only takes a minute to write and there is nothing to lose by doing so. Here is a partial part of a letter from Dennis Pagen who is dealing with exactly the same situation at Hyner View in Pa.

"He made clear that the parks are very adversely affected by these intended
closures and are like us--waiting around with bated breath and a sense of
impending doom to see where the axe is going to fall. He also said, in the
case of PA, don't expect any closure to be short--ten years is what he
expected. Economy 101: it's either guns or butter, and we chose guns."

Imagine 10 year closures in our State Parks. Do what you can and please do it now.

Brad Hall
brad.reg3@gmail.com

OSCAR · Post by **OSCAR** » Sun Jun 14, 2009 7:13 pm

George & Brad are absolutely right we need everyone involved in this effort if we are going to make a difference . just imagine having to leave state every time you want to fly that would truly suck.I 'm sending a second letter to all the state representatives also mention the endangered species that live in the parks and the cost of reopening the parks will be staggering if their closed for a long period of time.we have to let them know we are serious about this.if there's a big enough out cry they will start looking elsewhere for budget cuts. please do your part now there isn't much time left.

stebbins · Post by **stebbins** » Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:09 am

The sad part is that closing the parks will actually make the budget situation worse, not better. But for the first few months it will look like it helped the budget. The numbers from the cuts show up immediately, but the numbers from reduced revenue show up later. It's a budgetary scam to make them look good regardless of the actual effect.

It is just short-sighted. Like eating the seed corn. Foolish.

Don't let them think that we are bamboozled by their "budget cutting." This particular change won't improve the budget, and they need to know that we voters realize this!

Don · Post by **Don** » Mon Jun 15, 2009 9:46 am

Let's face it. The LAST thing any politician wants to do is "fix" the problem without showing the public that there is a direct/visible impact.

Imagine if the budget shortfall was resolved without any direct or visible impact on the public - we would all be questioning why we were spending the money in the first place. In this case, closing the parks is very visible. Closing the DMV two days a month is very visible, the proposed closure of other state offices a couple days a month is very visible.

The politicians should look to the private sector for examples on how to reduce expenditures and still stay in business - one method is simply to reduce pay rates - while keeping the same hours. Then go after the hugely expensive benefit packages.

If you think this is not what is happening in the "real world" just go ask any one of the small business men in the club - are you working the same or more hours and making less? I'm sure they will give you a true education on the economic facts of life - versus the fantasy world that our public employees are living in.

dhmartens · Post by **dhmartens** » Mon Jun 15, 2009 10:40 am

I wonder if they are going to go after the state pensions. I think they will introduce the Mccauley ballot initiative to tax state pensions after the state budget "reboots" next month.

http://www.sacbee.com/static/weblogs/th ... ositi.html

"...The latest McCauley ballot measure, which has been given the Secretary of State's OK for signature collection to qualify for a statewide vote, would create new taxes on California residents who get more than $40,000 annually from pension distributions, Social Security, or the cash value of health care benefits...."

Closing the state parks and ending welfare and throwing children onto the streets to starve - I'm glad I'm not in the legislature.

Brad Hall · Post by **Brad Hall** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:41 am

Here is the latest update on the issue. I know we all hate fees, but another $15 on my DMV fees to keep the State Parks open seems like a good deal to me. Remember, this is for all State Parks, not just the few we fly in.

06/15/09

Since the Governorsâ€™ proposal on May 28th to close 220 state parks, Friends of Santa Cruz State Parks has led the local effort to keep them open. Nearly 13,000 letters have been sent to our local legislators and today the Budget Conference Committee heard our voices. The committee voted 6 to 4 to eliminate General Fund support to the state parks, replacing it with a State Parks Access Pass, funded by a $15 surcharge on vehicle license fees.

â€œThe public outpouring of support for our state parks has been heard by our legislators. The State Parks Access Pass adopted by the budget conferees is a long-term solution that would keep our parks open,â€� said Bonny Hawley, Executive Director of Friends of Santa Cruz State Parks. â€œHowever, thereâ€™s a very long way to go before a final budget is adopted and anything can happen in the twists and turns of budget negotiations. We urge everyone to take action and contact their legislators in support of the State Parks Access Pass."

Brad

stebbins · Post by **stebbins** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:54 am

Hey, some kind of good news. For now at least.

While I am perfectly willing to have a $15 fee, I'm not sure that the DMV is the right place to collect it. There's a big political issue with that, as I'm sure you all remember.

Nonetheless, having it be "pre-allocated" from a specific place helps keep it from being diverted, as would happen if it came from sales tax or income tax. It doesn't stop it, but it does make it harder for them to do without getting noticed.

We need to be vigilant about this. It has survived the Budget Conference Committee vote. There are more hurdles, including a Governor who ran for office explicitly on a platform of lowering Vehicle License Fees... Keep your pens, pencils, phones and keyboards ready in case we need to do more!

And thanks to all who sent in letters, called, etc. If you put it off, it wouldn't hurt to send one anyway. Especially if your representatives/senators aren't on the Budget Committee, and especially to the Governor.

dhmartens · Post by **dhmartens** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:06 am

What I'm starting to hear is the Federal Government is going to bail out California with cash and guaranteed loans but with many strings attached. These strings will effectively end California's sovereignty as its budget will now be controlled in Washington DC.

At least Dockweiler Beach was not on the list.

stebbins · Post by **stebbins** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:11 am

As of this morning, on NPR, the Feds said California was getting no Federal money for this purpose. Just the stuff they get in the normal course of business. Just like other states.

That may, of course, change. But for now, that's what the Administration is saying.

Brad Hall · Post by **Brad Hall** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 9:05 am

As is always true when you read news like this, the real story is buried in plain site.........namely, George listens to NPR

dhmartens · Post by **dhmartens** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:41 am

Another interesting tidbit not widely covered in the news is on the Vallejo Chapter 9 Bankruptcy. (March 23, 2009)
http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNL ... slreturn=1

"...In the first ruling of its kind, a bankruptcy judge held that the city of Vallejo, Calif., has the authority to void its existing union contracts in its effort to reorganize, holding that public workers do not enjoy the same protections Congress gave union workers at private companies."

The state its self cannot get chapter 9 protection but city, counties, municipalities can.

Vallejo balanced its budget with the help of a federal judge by going after police and firefighter unions, the guys that save us.

JBBenson · Post by **JBBenson** » Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:08 pm

Brad Hall wrote:As is always true when you read news like this, the real story is buried in plain site.........namely, George listens to NPR

So what?

stebbins · Post by **stebbins** » Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:29 pm

So you object to me listening to a radio station that actually carries the full text (or voice) of the newsworthy event instead of a cut-up clip intended to make an editorial point? (Like Fox News - as publicly admitted by it's owner, Rupert Murdoch.)

I also listen to KFWB News radio. And others. CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc. What's Brad's point? (Or is this just a joke, and I missed it? Could be. It's been a rough week and my humor detector is not up to snuff. If so, I apologize.)

The real story is hidden in plain sight: Brad doesn't listen to an actual variety of news sources.

(Note spelling correction. It is "sight" not "site". "Sight" is what you see. "Site" is a place.)

Brad Hall · Post by **Brad Hall** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 7:35 am

Jeez, it was a joke. Sorry if you were offended. I sometimes listen to NPR myself. I will stick to politics, much as I hate to.
Brad

OSCAR · Post by **OSCAR** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 6:11 pm

now -now -you boy's be good and shake hands

I won't have any fighting on this post .

Sylmar Hang Gliding Association

Governors response to letter protesting park closures

Governors response to letter protesting park closures

State Parks

Budget Considerations

State Parks closures

State Parks closures

Re: State Parks closures

State Parks