I think the article said until 2010.

If the parks are going to be losing money then I don't have an issue with closing them. However, it seems that the costs to run are less than the profits made so it seems silly to close something generating revenue for the state.

I think the concept is to keep open the cash cow parks and close the slower ones. Saving the money that would go to them.

Well, according to the SF Comical, most Bay Area parks would close :eek:

You didn't say Progressives, you said "Democrats." They are most certainly NOT one and the same.

Got it: Republicans are evil incarnate and Democrats are pure as the driven snow. :rolleyes:

Anyone who believes that one party is A-OK while the other is the sole cause of the current situation is clueless. We're all in this together. Both parties had their hand in this. To think otherwise is just foolish.

Actually, the 2/3 vote necessary to pass any budget leaves the budget hostage to extremists of either stripe. In the case of California, those all happen to be Republicans.

Quoted for posterity! :evil:

Seriously though, while I agree that neither party is perfect, the past eight years has led me realize that average Republican polititians are far worse than the average Democratic ones.

That much I will agree with. Always been the lesser of two weevils.

Hmmm....So how does one enforce a closed park if you lay off the people who run it?

BINGO! That one bit of crap is what puts this state through budget hell, year after year- the whole state gets held hostage by nutjobs on either end of the ideological spectrum.

Before I'd recall Schwarzenegger, I'd go after that - dare I say it, I'd go about removing that clause before I'd go after removing prop 8. (I want both things to happen, but I'd give more priority to removing the 2/3 vote to pass a budget first).