If you’ve read much of my writing here in the past, you’ll have seen that I’m a pretty big fan of the state park system.  I’m something of an outdoor enthusiast, with a particular love for hiking in my coastal neighborhood.

But for the past several years, the parks have been in a constant state of flux due to the budget crisis.  Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed closing 80% of them, which would be a tragedy for the system, and for the state.  Jerry Brown doesn’t seem to want to go that high, but he’s clearly on the way to closing some parks.  He just won’t tell you which and how many:

Brown instructed the state parks department to draw up by mid-February a list of parks to be closed to save $11 million this year and $22 million next year.

But today, three months later, as millions of Californians prepare for summer vacations to state beaches, forests and historic sites, the names of the parks to be closed remain a tightly held secret.

The lack of disclosure has rangers anxious, legislators uninformed and parks advocates frustrated.

“We’re quite disturbed we haven’t seen the list,” said Elizabeth Goldstein, president of the California State Parks Foundation, a nonprofit advocacy group. “We think if there’s any chance for the nonprofit community to step up and help the state when it looks like parks are going to be closing, the more time organizations have to plan, the more likely we’ll find some kind of interim solutions.” (MediaNews)

There are a number of problems here. First, the State Park system brings in a not insignificant amount of money to the state, through tourism and related expenses.  That tax revenue won’t just completely dry up and will likely find other mechanisms and other parks, but it simply won’t be totally replaced.

There is of course another option that continually peers its head over the parks system. Privatization.  And really, if we were to close any significant parks you would expect such privatization to start its creep pretty quickly.  Of course, it would start rather benignly, with the offer to help “support” a park, for some form of advertising, and then it would eventually grow to parks being owned and/or operated by outside systems.

In fact, I know this to be true.  Take the Willow Creek Addition to the Sonoma Coast State Park.  It was given to the state in the early part of this decade, but we couldn’t afford to take it in.  So, a really great non-profit, LandPaths, stepped up to help run it.  They don’t charge anything, but they do require that you go to an orientation to be able to enter the park.  They just don’t have the resources to provided a complete level of services that you’d find at a state park.  

Don’t get me wrong, I think LandPaths is providing a tremendous service, but I think even the folks there would prefer that the park be integrated into the state parks system.  Parks should be public, with open access to anybody who wants to visit.

So, at some point we’ll get some sort of list, likely after the budget process.  And non-profits will go about finding some way for at least some of those parks to stay open.  But, it will be one more step on the road to public/private state parks, where they cost more to enter, and what was once California’s promise steps further away from reality.