Budget

On State Park Privatization

7 Comments

Measure by Jared Huffman would allow non-profits to run parks

by Brian Leubitz

I’ve brought up the subject of “privatization” of state parks in the past, and mentioned that I’m quite fond of the Willow Creek extension to the Sonoma Coast state park that is managed by a non-profit, LandPaths.

However, a new law passed by Asm. Jared Huffman would allow state parks to be run by a nonprofit organization.  To put it lightly, there are progressives on both sides of this issue.  But the CA State Parks Foundation has been pushing for this legislation.

“Nonprofit organizations have been supporting the state park system throughout its more than 100 year history, and AB 42 provides another venue for that critical support,” said Traci Verardo-Torres, Vice President of Government Affairs for the California State Parks Foundation, the organizational sponsor of the bill. “Across the state, park advocates and concerned Californians are coming together to identify creative, collaborative solutions to keep our parks protected and open for public access. Allowing nonprofits to help keep state parks open will help parks that would otherwise close, and will engage Californians in safeguarding the resources that belong to all of us.”

Let’s put the first caveat out there: we should not be dealing with this.  We should have enough money to run our state parks, and pay for our higher education.  But, because of both GOP extremism and some crazy governmental structures, we have to make choices.

LandPaths is a tremendous organization with some really dedicated staff who are willing to go to incredible lengths to get the job done.  And I’m sure the other organizations who are going to take up this challenge are good groups as well.  But this has to be a very temporary fix. This is most definitely not a permanent solution to anything, and we need to ensure that this kind of mess does not happen in the future.

7 thoughts on “On State Park Privatization”

  1. …we should not be dealing with this… This is most definitely not a permanent solution to anything… – Brian

    Why shouldn’t we be dealing with the issue of people paying for a service they may not use?  I doubt I will visit a state park in my life (I’m more of a urban guy) but if I did I’d expect to pay for the service I was using, not having someone else pay for it for me.  It seems to me the parks will be funded in the fairest manner possible, by those that appreciate them and wish to use them.  I know this is anathema to Progressive ideology but what empirical evidence can you offer that their is a fairer solution?

    We had a similar discussion a few threads back about some bird watching place.  If their is such demand for these venues the individuals of the greater public will keep them available through non-profits or, heaven forbid, a viable commercial model.

    Why is this even an issue?  It should have been this way all along.

  2. Yes there is a concept called the public good and we do have things like public roads…but they are paid for in large part by user fees and taxes.  Tolls and gas taxes paid by drivers.  If you don’t use them you pay little or nothing towards their upkeep.

    State Parks should be no different.  I use them all the time and most of them are occupied by middle class white people in Volvos and Subarus.  You don’t see many people from inner city Oakland camping in the Sierras on 4th of July but progressives want them to pay so that well of people from Marin can.

Comments are closed.