Schwarzenegger to Close 220 State Parks
 

I'm Livid! :mad:

Absolutely - they should lay off government workers instead!

Sorry, but budget-wise, the state is in a world of hurt. Of where the funding can be cut, I would say this is one of the less painful places to do so.

Well, how about raising prices for entry on some parks. A carload into Yosemite for $20 was a huge bargain.

I love Big Basin, that was my first State Park growing up. :(

$70 million will do nothing to help the budget shortfall. In fact, closing these parks will eliminate an estimated $164.5 million in taxes that they generate through tourism! A stupid, shortsighted, meanspirited move.

Why would that be qualified as meanspirited? Maybe short sighted and stupid (I certainly don't claim to know), but I don't get the mean spirited part.

So - instead of looking to where they are wasting money - they look to take away something that actually makes money.

If they would legalize some things - it could generate some money. You know - like medical marijuana... gay marriage... but no. They would rather be stupid.

Are they just going to close the areas and not let anyone enter them? Or what? Isn't there some provision about state parks being available to the public as part of public land use when the land was appropriated?

http://www.sdnn.com/sandiego/2009-05...schwarzenegger

Want to see some changes? Help with the effort to recall Schwarzenegger.

That's how we got the Governator to begin with.

Wouldn't it be ironic if he went out the same way he came in?

But who could replace him? Who could fix this horrible mess?

Well, I want Newsom but not through a recall election.

When is the next Governator election?

Hey, he's a Rebublican... Everyone knows that goes hand-in-hand with meanspiritedness. ;)

November 2010, or a little over 17 months from now.

He can do a lot more damage between now and then.

Will Rodgers!!!!!

This pisses me off to no end.

Sounds like payback. Didn't you (the voters of California) just tell the Governor to make drastic cuts on all government services programs by voting down all the cost cutting measures on the ballot?

The parks I would expect are just the first salvo. You guys are way way way in the red and something has to give.

There is one quick way for the state to get out of debt.

Legalize marijuana.

The state could impose a tax, perhaps as much as 100%, with most of the revenue going to pay off the debt.

The way it is now, it's possible to visit a doctor and get a medical marijuna card. Anyone who wants marijuana can get it if they want, legally.

This would allow the state to make some money with it.

Gray Davis, of course.



And a 100% marijuana tax might be enough to turn me into a raving anti-tax Republican.

I wouldn't mind a hefty marijuana tax to make it legal once and for all. I love that so many states are considering legalizing it now that it can rescue them from financial ruin, but that was not good enough when it was a harmless drug compared to alcohol and tobacco, and it grows from the frelling earth itself.


I hate to see the shuttering of parks, but I've a feeling we might look back a few years from now to find it quaint when all social and government services have stopped.


Get a grip, people. Aside from raising YOUR taxes to amounts you couldn't possibly afford to pay, please make some suggestions for where you'd like billions of dollars cut from the state budget before you go crying about such relatively minor issues as closed parks.


Believe me, I think this is horrible. Closing off nature from the public is abhorent to me. It's also boneheaded in that the parks turn a profit for the California economy.


But compared with what's to come here in California, and with what is going on elsewhere in the world as I type these words ... state park closures are really a ... a ... ok, no better analogy available ... a walk in the park.

Is California is in worse shape now than when Grey Davis was recalled? Just curious.

Yes, of course we are.


Of course, I have no idea why people were so upset with Gray Davis that he had to be freaking recalled. That's absurd. I certainly didn't love the guy ... but WTF was up with that?

We're only talking about $70 million. That's only .29% of the budget shortfall (and about .01% of the total state budget)! This is an unnescessary cut that will do nothing to solve the problem! It will destroy our state parks sytem and cost the state hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars in lost tourism.

Yes, by far!

He wasn't Republican. So, of course he had to be eliminated at any cost.

However I'm not sure I buy the implication that Schwarenegger is to blame for that or that the state would be in better shape had Davis stayed on.

No, perhaps not. Either way though, The economic meltdown is the fault of Republican policy - at both the state and federal level.

I don't know. That argument is as frustrating to hear as the "yeah, things were bad under Bush but just think how much worse it could have been under Gore or Kerry". There's supposing and then there's what is actually happening. Arnold is accountable for his state's economy, isn't he?

Do the words GLOBAL FINANCIAL MELTDOWN have any relevance in this situation? Everyone everywhere is worse off.







(Ok, not "everyone" literately but you get my meaning)

I fully support the legalization of marijuana, but to say it's harmless because it's natural is ridiculous. Oleander and hemlock are also 100% natural but I don't think anyone in their right mind would want to ingest those.

No - but alcohol and tobacco aren't harmless either and they are legal.

Playing devil's advocate here...
So if things were okay globally, the current CA governor should take no credit in CA doing well. Because things are great everywhere, that's why things are great in CA?

--------


So what happens to the 80 million park visitors? Going to the parks are a cheap alternative to spending mucho dinero at places like Disneyland. Things are already depressing, why take away the parks on top of that?

I'm also thinking that these parks aren't closed forever, right? Just for now?

Actually, I'm thinking this might make a great opportunity to see a bit of nature without all the tourists, rangers and other interfering factors.

At least for those willing to go it on their own so to speak.

Errr, the overwhelming percentage of them will go to the parks. They are not shutting down the entire system after all....

Republicans carry enough power in CA to force the recall of a governor? Republicans are pretty outnumbered in CA, aren't they?

I know enough to dispute this at the federal level (I believe it shared responsibility between both parties but that it started with policies made during the Carter years, but that obviously isn't the subject of this thread), but not knowing the CA political structure, have the republicans controlled anything in CA for a while? I suspect they haven't but I don't know, so it's an honest question.

Whoa! I didn't say it was harmless BECAUSE it's natural. My implication is that it's absurd for man to declare illegal that which grows from the earth. If that puts hemlock in the same bag, so be it. Let's allow that to be legal, and see just how big the market is for hemlock.


Nor did I say it was harmless at all. I said it was LESS harmful than alcohol or tobacco, both drugs that are legal.


I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. We now return to your State Park Potential Crisis thread, already in progress.

Perhaps. But I was refering to the people who spearheaded the recall, and who did everything they could to demonize Davis because he was a Democrat.

Oh please... The Rebublicans got their wet dream of an unregulated market; and now we are all paying the price.

Don't pretend the Democrats were any less free-market than the Republicans.

Lately, when it comes to social issues, I'm finding less of a difference between Republicans and Democrats. ie. Lots of the Democrat lawmakers in Hawaii are elephants in donkey costumes.

Closing the parks is ridiculous, of course, and legalizing pot, I agree, would ease some pain (yes, I fully intend the irony there, and full disclosure dictates that I state that I am now eligible for medicinal marijuana, so take it as you will) but I would like to know why, with such a terrible budgetary mess, California still supplies so much aid to Mexico in the form of health services, education, etc to illegal aliens? Cut off the money to illegals, impose stiff penalties on hiring them, and send them home, and I have no doubt the budget will bounce back further than it will by closing some campgrounds. Why is nobody focusing in on the real problems and real solutions?

Bad idea as it will accomplish as much god as the Davis recall did: virtually none.

What narrow-sighted political bigotry. The Dems are as equally f-ed up as the Reps.

Not at all. An unregulated market is a conservative ideal, not a progressive one.

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).

All an issue of perspective. We can alway splay tit for tat with this politican of this party did this or this politician of that party did that.

In the same way the progressives and democrats are not the same, conservatives and republicans are not the same.

I'm concerned about the impact this will have on my planned camping trip this fall. Is there a list somewhere of which parks will make the cut?

Yes, we need both, and even I daresay we need the to remove the 2/3 vote more importantly than add protections to prevent a future prop 8 scenario. But since we desperately need BOTH, I hope the nacent movement for a full-blown Constitutional Convention picks up steam ... and I'm going to put my activist muscle towards that goal.

Many of the parks that are closing are historic sites, not traditional "parks". I fear that if they are simply shuttered and abandoned, they will fall victim to vandalism.

Yes but what if we are the vandals?

A bit of devils advocate - the budget shortfall is in excess of $40 billion dollars. EVERY single program that can be cut can be defended with the, "It's only a drop in the bucket anyway!" argument. There is no single place to cut that amounts to any large portion of the problem. The only way to proceed is to cut lots of small bits.

I'm not saying there aren't other good arguments against this move, but that particular one doesn't hold water.

What I really like here is the banner picture at the top of the page.

Cr@p.... it's on the cut list.

:(

To quote Arnie in his next election movie:
"I won't be back"

So out of this article on the closures, I found this rather interesting tidbit:

What do you think of that idea? Given that park entry costs more than $10, I'd totally be up for this. Provided those funds were guaranteed to go to the parks.

Sounds like a good idea to me as well.

I'd vote for that - but only as long as the money HAD to go to state parks and they would be guaranteed to remain open.

Grants, Land at Risk if CA State Parks Close

Fully story: Link

Would it be a bad thing if State Parks were converted to National Parks?


It's what happened to Yosemite. Just sayin'

The question is, would they be so converted automatically? Some of these things weren't parks when the Feds handed them over (and a lot aren't really useful all on their own such as one parking lot on Mount Diablo.

I doubt the National Park Services wants management responsibility for many of them.

Our state park facilities (especially as applies to campgrounds) are quite nice compared to the national ones. I would not like to see that change.

It doesn't say whether that's the "access pass" plan or not, but if it is, the R's can fvck off. It's a good idea.