Schwarzenegger to Close 220 State Parks

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

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)

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

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)

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?

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

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.

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

So what happens to the 80 million park visitors?

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

[BarTopDancer]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

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

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.

[Moonliner]

Originally Posted by BarTopDancer

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.

[Snowflake]

Originally Posted by Moonliner

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