Once upon a time, there was a place so magical, that there were places that anybody could go. Rich and poor could, heaven forbid, mingle in the glory of nature. These places were even free to enter. It was a magical place.<\/p>\n
Of course, the days of free state parks has long since passed by the wayside. While we all would have loved to see Prop 21 pass, thereby ensuring a steady revenue stream for the parks system, it did not. And so we are back to fighting about which parks to close.<\/p>\n
Republicans have previously floated the idea of park sponsorships, but today, in an email from the Senate Republican caucus, they outright call for privatization of our parks system.<\/p>\n
Privatizing park operations can provide significant benefits to taxpayers. When a contractor agrees to run a park or group of parks on behalf of a public agency, that agency removes the subsidized units from its ledger. On top of that, the state can receive lease payments in return. It is common for contractors to pay 10% or more of gate receipts, similar to what is charged for many concessions.<\/p>\n
Park goers also benefit from private operations, as the operators have a financial incentive to enhance the visitor experience. Though they are limited by contract parameters, contractors can create a host of added benefits for visitors such as: Improved maintenance,Potential expanded facilities, Reduced risk of park closures or service cutbacks. …<\/p>\n
As the budget ax falls on state parks, multiple measures are making their way through the process to look at new ways of managing them. SB 356 (Blakeslee) requires DPR to allow cities and counties the first shot at operating a state park proposed for closure, while SB 386 (Harman) requires the posting of any proposed park closure, and the posting of contact information for potential vendors interested in bidding on the park. AB 42 (Huffman) authorizes the use of nonprofit entities to manage parks that would otherwise be closed.<\/p>\n
In fact, state law already allows DPR to lease state parks and facilities to private vendors, but the department has been reluctant to use it. In a March response to a letter from Sen. Tom Harman, the department claimed it is “considering the option” of leases. Still the department has not issued any contracts for bid for an entire park, and has reported only one new concessions agreement in the past year.<\/p>\n
Ultimately the Legislature must force the bureaucracy’s hand. There may be better ways to manage our parks, and keep them open during difficult fiscal times, but it will not be charted by the current management.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Wow, just wow. This whole premise is still based on one, supremely messed up, underlying notion: parks are something that should be monetized. But what if you view parks as something else entirely? The birthright of all Californians that should be free for them to enjoy as nature intended. In other words, they should be free. <\/p>\n
Now, this isn’t to blame those that care for our parks when the state can’t. In Sonoma County, I’m a big fan of LandPaths<\/a>. They run and maintain, through donations and people-power, several large parks in Sonoma County, including the Willow Creek Extension to Sonoma Coast State Park<\/a>. These are some damned dedicated people who are extremely worthy of our support<\/a>.<\/p>\n
But yet I return to the central premise of how treat each other in California. Do we care for each other enough to invest in our society, or are we really okay with the Social Darwinism? We own these parks, and why exactly can we not afford to maintain them without bringing in a for-profit company to manage them?<\/p>\n
Oh that’s right, the rich don’t want to pay taxes anymore<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Once upon a time, there was a place so magical, that there were places that anybody could go. Rich and poor could, heaven forbid, mingle in the glory of nature. These places were even free to enter. It was a magical place.<\/p>\n
Of course, the days of free state parks has long since passed by the wayside. While we all would have loved to see Prop 21 pass, thereby ensuring a steady revenue stream for the parks system, it did not. And so we are back to fighting about which parks to close.<\/p>\n
Republicans have previously floated the idea of park sponsorships, but today, in an email from the Senate Republican caucus, they outright call for privatization of our parks system.<\/p>\n
Privatizing park operations can provide significant benefits to taxpayers. When a contractor agrees to run a park or group of parks on behalf of a public agency, that agency removes the subsidized units from its ledger. On top of that, the state can receive lease payments in return. It is common for contractors to pay 10% or more of gate receipts, similar to what is charged for many concessions.<\/p>\n
Park goers also benefit from private operations, as the operators have a financial incentive to enhance the visitor experience. Though they are limited by contract parameters, contractors can create a host of added benefits for visitors such as: Improved maintenance,Potential expanded facilities, Reduced risk of park closures or service cutbacks. …<\/p>\n
As the budget ax falls on state parks, multiple measures are making their way through the process to look at new ways of managing them. SB 356 (Blakeslee) requires DPR to allow cities and counties the first shot at operating a state park proposed for closure, while SB 386 (Harman) requires the posting of any proposed park closure, and the posting of contact information for potential vendors interested in bidding on the park. AB 42 (Huffman) authorizes the use of nonprofit entities to manage parks that would otherwise be closed.<\/p>\n
In fact, state law already allows DPR to lease state parks and facilities to private vendors, but the department has been reluctant to use it. In a March response to a letter from Sen. Tom Harman, the department claimed it is “considering the option” of leases. Still the department has not issued any contracts for bid for an entire park, and has reported only one new concessions agreement in the past year.<\/p>\n
Ultimately the Legislature must force the bureaucracy’s hand. There may be better ways to manage our parks, and keep them open during difficult fiscal times, but it will not be charted by the current management.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Wow, just wow. This whole premise is still based on one, supremely messed up, underlying notion: parks are something that should be monetized. But what if you view parks as something else entirely? The birthright of all Californians that should be free for them to enjoy as nature intended. In other words, they should be free. <\/p>\n
Now, this isn’t to blame those that care for our parks when the state can’t. In Sonoma County, I’m a big fan of LandPaths<\/a>. They run and maintain, through donations and people-power, several large parks in Sonoma County, including the Willow Creek Extension to Sonoma Coast State Park<\/a>. These are some damned dedicated people who are extremely worthy of our support<\/a>.<\/p>\n
But yet I return to the central premise of how treat each other in California. Do we care for each other enough to invest in our society, or are we really okay with the Social Darwinism? We own these parks, and why exactly can we not afford to maintain them without bringing in a for-profit company to manage them?<\/p>\n