I can’t wait for my award from the Chamber of Commerce for all of my hard work, or perhaps from the Yes on Prop 8 Krew.  Because, clearly today is bizarro day if this report from the Capitol Weekly is true (and I have no doubt that it is):

The National Park Trust said it planned to honor Schwarzenegger on Oct. 29 with its 2009 Bruce F. Vento Public Service Award “for his leadership and innovation in the protection of public lands in California and for his life-long commitment to children’s health and to connecting them with the outdoors.”

*** *** ***

“When Schwarzenegger pulled the plug, instead of parks being completely closed, there were a lot of partial closures,” said Elizabeth Goldstein of the State Parks Foundation. “Half the restrooms in the state closed, and camps and trails. There were very severe cutbacks in services. We think this is going to affect the public a lot. Obviously, they won’t find completely closed gates 365 days a year, but the parks are far less maintained, and health and safety issues are getting taken care of less quickly.” (CapWeekly 10/20/09)

This is insane.  As Elizabeth Goldstein points out, he protected parks only insofar as he had to. If the governor would have really protected the parks, he wouldn’t have slashed additional funding with his blue pencil, and he wouldn’t have left the closure list hanging over the heads of the system for three months.

I have a lot of respect for the National Park Trust, but it’s like they just sent out invitations for awards to whatever megastar celebrity governor that they could get, and ended up with Arnold.  

With “protectors” like this, who needs enemies?

Did you want to go to the state park this weekend? It does sound splendid and relaxing doesn’t it? And, vacations are good for your health. Well, expect higher fees at most state parks.  Some fees will almost double.  The Times has a representative sample of some of those fee hikes. Just another little tax brought to you by the Republican Party.

But while the fee hikes are annoying, they aren’t anything when compared to the specter of the mass closure of our parks.  Park closures are, post budget slash and burn, inevitable. The closure list isn’t supposed to come out until Labor Day or so, but there’s already panic amongst park-goers.  Take the Marshall Gold Discovery State Historical Park in El Dorado County:

Scott Nakaji, superintendent of the Park Department’s Gold Fields District, said the park surrounding the site of Sutter’s Mill on the south fork of the American River likely will close for at least two years unless other funding sources are found.

Operating Marshall park at a minimal level would cost about $760,000 a year. With annual average revenue of $197,000, Nakaji said, approximately $565,000 would have to be raised each year to offset eliminated state general fund money. (SacBee 8/21/09)

The park is actually in the district of Supervisor Ron Briggs, who is fighting the closure.  That name sound familiar? Yup, he’s the son of John Briggs, the proponent of 1978’s Proposition 6 that appeared in the movie Milk. That being said, if you are interested in keeping that park open, you can meet him at 6 p.m. in the park picnic area behind the museum.  

This is the legacy of historically unpopular Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and his friends in the Yacht Party – corporate sponsorships for state parks.

State parks officials and nonprofit organizations scrambled Wednesday to find funding and possibly new corporate sponsors to keep as many as 100 parks and beaches open after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger slashed an additional $6.2 million out of the state parks system […]

State officials won’t finalize a list of park closures until Labor Day and said they hope to see the parks reopened in one to two years.

“We are actively seeking anyone who can help us with these places, all of them jewels, at a time when people need them most,” said state parks Director Ruth Coleman.

“There are many groups and corporations that will step up to the plate and try to help,” said Elizabeth Goldstein, executive director of the California State Parks Foundation, a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting state parks. “But it would be a mistake to think that these efforts will be sufficient to replace the public funds being extracted.” […]

The crisis also triggered debate over the kinds of recognition corporate sponsors could expect in return for helping to subsidize a state park.

“We’re reaching out to all possible partners — cities, counties, nonprofits, banks, corporations, newspapers, individuals — who would be interested in helping us,” said Roy Stearns, spokesman for the state parks department. “Maybe we can find agreements that don’t alter, commercialize or degrade our state park system.

“For example, if Budweiser came forward with money for Malibu Beach State Park, we wouldn’t change the name to Budweiser Beach,” he said. “But why not put up a banner saying, ‘This park is kept open by Budweiser’ for as long as they continue helping us?

If this isn’t a hop, skip and a jump to unique licensing agreements to sell products on site, I don’t know what is.

The article makes pretty clear that, while state parks and beaches may not be financially self-sustaining, they generate major amounts of economic activity.  In fact, over the past year, the system “is currently packed with the highest visitation rates ever recorded,” according to the parks director.  This leads to residual spending in the areas around parks and beaches, increased tourism, etc.  The natural beauty of California is a major attraction throughout the world.

Thanks to Governor Hoover we must lock them up or turn to the private sector to sustain them.

All part of his plan.

…I want to also address George Skelton’s complaint that progressives somehow made their bed by voting down the May 19 ballot measures and now they must lie in it.  I’ll ignore for the moment this major error in the piece, the assertion that “state revenue has been plummeting, down 13% in the last two years even with February’s tax increases.” (um, they didn’t take effect until April, not over the “last two years”) And I won’t comment on his barely suppressed glee over eliminating cost-of-living adjustments for poor people on welfare.

Schwarzenegger and the Legislature were widely accused of scare tactics — crying wolf — when they warned about the consequences of voters rejecting the May ballot measures. The wolf just broke down the door.

So let’s do Skelton’s counterfactual.  Let’s envision a world where the ballot measures that impacted the bottom line passed.

Those were worth a little less than $6 billion.

The deficit was $26 billion.

$1 billion of those $6 billion were cuts to different programs.  If a world where cuts to certain programs means we wouldn’t feel cuts to other programs is a world you populate and exalt, I think you’re alone.

The other $5 billion was dubious borrowing.  The most contentious item in the budget, and the most likely to have been dropped in your counterfactual… was $5 billion in dubious borrowing, only to local governments.

So the consequences of voting down very unwise ballot measures was… what, exactly?  Different cuts to vital services and different dubious borrowing?

(And of course, we’d have a permanent spending cap, rather than the political spending cap we have now thanks to the conservative veto.)

I mentioned a few days ago that I spent a couple nights camping in the state parks over the weekend.  I was up in Mendocino and stayed in two different state parks between there and SF.  We are really fortunate to have resources like these. They provide a lot to the people of California, not only in terms of recreation and preservation of our natural resources, but also to our economy through the tourist dollars that they bring to their local communities.

Yet with the signing of the budget, Arnold Schwarzenegger took another $6 Million from the state parks budget, bringing the total cut from the state parks budget to $14.2 million for this round of cuts.  These cuts will result in the closure of nearly 100 parks, or almost a third of the entire state park system.  A closure list has yet to be released, but we should be seeing something on that front from the folks at the state park system very shortly.

At any rate, the situation is dire for the state parks.  In fact, it is so bad, that the parks’ web page now has google ads on some pages. Scary, but you can’t blame them.  Perhaps if enough Californians click through on those Google ads we can save a park or two!  But, on a more serious note, the question of how the state parks will be financed is a vexing question.

The trouble is that the parks are seen by some as a sort of luxury. That is far from the case, and many of the really talented and visionary leaders of our state and nation have understood that and advocated for the parks. But as long as they are seen as of lesser importance they will continue to be killed by a thousand cuts.  I have no doubt whatsoever that the parks will once again be on the chopping block when we come back to the budget fight, likely around October or so.

Of course, for long-time park defenders, the subject of a ballot measure to protect the funding stream is certain to come up.  Parks are always popular, but the polling on the cuts doesn’t exactly bode well. Back in April, Field showed (PDF) that 51% of Californians favor cuts to state parks. Yet, in the press release I’ve included below the fold, there is some vague mention of “a dedicated funding source.” Such an idea would be a mistake for a litany of reasons.

It’s not that I don’t want to protect the parks, it is that our state cannot be run by the ballot box any more. It’s that our system already has too much money outside of the regular budget process. Of course, it is the budget process itself that is the problem. It is no shock that in a system like ours, we cannot fund traditional state priorities. It is a sad, sad sign of the legacy of this generation of leaders.

But, if you have $15 million laying around, perhaps you could shoot it over to the parks. I’m sure they’d appreciate it, and so would I.

California State Parks Foundation Statement on Governor’s Budget Revise

SACRAMENTO, CA – Today, the Governor signed a revised Fiscal Year 2009-2010 state budget, based on the package of bills sent to him by the Legislature on July 24.  In using his blue-pencil veto authority, the Governor exacted an additional $6.2 million cut to the state park system, bringing the total General Fund cut to $14.2 million.  It is expected (and referenced in the Governor’s budget summary) that more than 100 state parks will be closed.  Below is a statement of the California State Parks Foundation (CSPF) on the Governor’s veto.

Statement of Elizabeth Goldstein, CSPF President

“This is a dark day in the history of California’s state park system.  At a time when Californians are most in need of their low cost, accessible state parks, the gates are being slammed in their faces.  At a time when local businesses, particularly in rural communities, most rely on tourism and park visitation for their own economic stimulus, the doors are being shut to them.  In the context of an $85 billion General Fund budget, the $14.2 million in “savings” that would come from closing more than 100 state parks is truly a drop in the bucket.  But it’s a small drop that will have a ripple effect, then a tsunami, for park visitors and local economies.  

Closing more than one-third of the state park system cannot be done without real consequences to Californians.  Although CSPF and other park partners are already trying to identify ways to keep some parks open, it will simply not be possible for the state to walk away from 100 parks and expect others to fully substitute for its public responsibility.  California’s state parks have been teetering on the brink of a funding cliff for several decades, this action now pushes them over the edge.  California cannot afford for its state parks to be a political football every year.  Our state parks desperately need a dedicated funding source to protect them from these now-annual budget actions.”  

###

About SOS

The Save Our State Parks (SOS) Campaign is a statewide, grassroots campaign to keep California’s magnificent state parks open. In partnership with organizations, businesses, local governments, and individuals around the state, the California State Parks Foundation is leading SOS Campaign activities and generating awareness and action about budget proposals that would result in unacceptable park closures. For more information visit www.savestateparks.org

About CSPF

With our 100,000 members, the California State Parks Foundation (CSPF) is the only statewide independent nonprofit membership organization dedicated to protecting, enhancing and advocating for California’s magnificent state parks. CSPF is committed to improving the quality of life for all Californians by expanding access to the natural beauty, rich culture and history, and recreational and educational opportunities offered by California’s 279 state parks-the largest state park system in the United States. For more information about California’s state parks, visit www.calparks.org

Robert alluded to the closing of state parks, but today we got the bloody details of what Arnold plans to do to our state parks:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s latest proposal to tackle the state’s $24.3 billion shortfall includes the elimination of all general fund contributions to California’s 279 parks within two years.

It is a nightmare scenario that would mean the public could be barred from visiting 223 parks – that’s 80 percent of the state-owned parks, according to park officials. (SF Gate 5/28/09)

Besides the absolute tragedy of allowing some of our state’s natural treasures being locked up behind a gate, this plan is completely unpractical.  How exactly are we going to stop people from using the beach? Is a lock really going to stop people from going to the state parks? The only thing we are doing is creating what is known in tort law as an “attractive nuisance.” We will create hazardous conditions in state parks that people have been going to for years, and will not stop because of a padlock or a warning sign here or there.

Like so many other of these small-minded cuts, this one is simply not practical and a bad idea for our economy. Take Hearst Castle in San Simeon for example. It is a huge tourist draw for the region. While it doesn’t quite get enough money in park fees to cover the expenses, the net result of the increased tax base in the region is a net benefit to the state.  Without the Castle being open, the region and the state will net a loss of money.  Same thing for parks all across the state.  People come to California to visit our natural resources, and they expect to be able to go to our amazing state parks.  

We are simply cutting off our nose to spite our face at this point. The California State Parks Foundation fought cuts in the past, and they have suggested action items for you now.

The slideshow is a small snippet of some of the parks that would be closed under this proposal. You can view the slideshow larger below the flip.

(This is a little technique called “using your opponent’s words against them,” not an signal that I think “girly-man” is some kind of devastating or even viable slur, for the record)

Key stakeholders are weighing in on the Governor’s revised budget.  The Education Coalition notes that public education is still shortchanged, primarily through suspending COLA adjustments.  Health Access California sees major cuts to health care, through denying certain Medi-Cal benefits to adults, eliminating coverage for some low-income working parents, and forcing others through loads of paperwork in the hopes that they’ll trip up and forget to check a box so they can be purged from the rolls.  Shane Goldmacher has a pretty comprehensive list of several other reactions.  

But my favorite take – probably because it most mirrors my own – is from Dan Weintraub, whose main point is basically what a coward this Governor is.

The governor’s revised budget would give more to schools and less to health and welfare than he proposed in January, but the real story is his proposal to use lottery revenues to bridge the stubborn gap between spending and tax collections. Schwarzenegger’s press staff is furiously trying to portray the lottery deal as something other than borrowing, but borrowing it is. The state would change the game’s rules in ways designed to attract more business, then lean on private investors for $15 billion in up-front payments. That advance on lottery revenues would be repaid over 30 years from the new proceeds generated by the changes. But the up-front money runs out after three years, and guess what happens then: Yup: the budget deficit reappears, unless there’s an economic miracle between now and then. Ironically, if there were an economic surge and the governor’s revenue-averaging proposal were in place, the state couldn’t spend the new money and would still be left with a shortfall to cover. That persistent shortfall, at least according to the governor’s numbers, is in the range of about $5 billion to $6 billion a year. Fixing that would be the next governor’s problem.

Schwarzenegger started off saying he was going to “blow up the boxes” in Sacramento.  He barely tried.  He said he would be the “Collectinator” and end the state’s donor status with respect to the federal government.  Didn’t happen.  This year he said the time had come for budget reform.  He offered the same answer as he has in previous years.  He’s even trying to shake down the state into accepting his borrow-and-spend proposal with the lottery, by raising the spectre of a regressive across-the-board sales tax if the voters knock it down in November.  

He’s a coward.  He doesn’t want to be responsible for fixing the budget permanently, so he wants to pass off the problem to his successor.  He doesn’t want his legacy besmirched, so he pulled back on the proposal to close parks or suspend Prop. 98.  He just wants to tour the world and appear on magazine covers, without having to do any of that nasty business of governing.  Nobody could be worse for this state at this time of crisis.