About 70 parks are slated to be closed in September as a result of the California budget problems.

The current list:

Anderson Marsh SHP
Annadel SP
Antelope Valley Indian Museum
Austin Creek SRA
Bale Grist Mill SHP
Benbow Lake SRA
Benicia Capitol SHP
Benicia SRA
Bidwell Mansion SHP
Bothe-Napa Valley SP
Brannan Island SRA
California Mining & Mineral Museum
Candlestick Point SRA
Castle Crags SP
Castle Rock SP
China Camp SP
Colusa-Sacramento River SRA
Del Norte Coast Redwoods SP
Fort Humboldt SHP
Fort Tejon SHP
Garrapata SP
George J. Hatfield SRA
Governor's Mansion SHP
Gray Whale Cove SB
Greenwood SB
Grizzly Creek Redwoods SP
Hendy Woods SP
Henry W. Coe SP
Jack London SHP
Jug Handle SNR
Leland Stanford Mansion SHP
Limekiln SP
Los Encinos SHP
Malakoff Diggins SHP
Manchester SP
McConnell SRA
McGrath SB
Mono Lake Tufa SNR
Morro Strand SB
Moss Landing SB
Olompali SHP
Palomar Mountain SP
Petaluma Adobe SHP
Picacho SRA
Pio Pico SHP
Plumas-Eureka SP
Point Cabrillo Light Station
Portola Redwoods SP
Providence Mountains SRA
Railtown 1897 SHP
Russian Gulch SP
Saddleback Butte SP
Salton Sea SRA
Samuel P. Taylor SP
San Pasqual Battlefield SHP
Santa Cruz Mission SHP
Santa Susana Pass SHP
Shasta SHP
South Yuba River SP
Standish-Hickey SRA
Sugarloaf Ridge SP
Tomales Bay SP
Tule Elk SNR
Turlock Lake SRA
Twin Lakes SB
Weaverville Joss House SHP
Westport-Union Landing SB
William B. Ide Adobe SHP
Woodson Bridge SRA
Zmudowski SB

What will happen to these parks, like Henry Coe? (Billy and Olde Dude like to go there in the winter)

---

The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.

Quote
Bee
What will happen to these parks, like Henry Coe? (Billy and Olde Dude like to go there in the winter)

So far I have yet to see any explanation...other than the word "padlocked".

It's sad to see Henry Coe on this list. But it looks as if two of my favorite destinations, Pacheco and Mt. Diablo, made the cut.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/16/2011 09:13PM by Ohnivy-Drak.

Quote
Bee
What will happen to these parks, like Henry Coe? (Billy and Olde Dude like to go there in the winter)

Meth Labs and pot farms I fear....glad to see my childhood haunts at Mt. Tam survived, but there are so many that sadly are closing.

The last time I was at Mono Lake Tufa SNR the ranger said it might be closed due to budget woes. Sadly, it looks like it made the list. I wondered at the time why such areas couldn't be made self supporting. I had to pay a nominal fee to access the area, but I would have gladly paid more to keep it self supporting. Part of me hopes they will keep it open to the public even if it isn't "manned", but the practical part of me says a few jerks would destroy the Tufa and ruin it for the rest of us.

I would like to see them submit a budget that funds all traditional state costs. The government, DMV, Forestry, schools, roads and maintenance, government office buildings, prisons, parks etc. Then submit a separate budget for the entitlement programs and all the rest and let us vote of what we want to afford.

Grim news. Hopefully the next maneuver will not be to auction off the assets.

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/13/2011 05:19PM by Frank Furter.

Sadly, this is a political ploy by the politicians to stick it to Californians so we're more willing to accept tax hikes. A number of these state parks could be saved if they eliminated some useless state commissions whose main purpose is to keep state politicians who have been termed out of office still employed and receiving six-figure salaries like when former state sentator Carole Migden was appointed recently to the California Agricultural Labor Relations Board. What does Migden, who served as a state assembly member and state senator representing urban San Francisco, has as qualifications to serve on a board ostensibly created to deal with farm labor issues?

California is littered with these boards and commissions. And while shutting them down will result only a small cost savings to the state, so would shutting down state parks. The amount of money the state saves by closing down these state parks is pretty negligible in the grand scale of things, but it helps drive a point to regular Californians that the state is out of money.

Some people like to call that blackmail.

Talking with some folks about the Henry Coe situation the last time this came up, the estimated costs to pay for the security to keep *us* out of *our* lands would be more than the annual cost of keeping the park open and collecting fees.

Also, I hope all of the citizens of california are enjoying the extra $17 they have in their pocket due to voting down the funding last election. Do something nice with it.

Quote
calipidder
Also, I hope all of the citizens of california are enjoying the extra $17 they have in their pocket due to voting down the funding last election. Do something nice with it.

Bingo

Yup. I tried like heck to convince my fellow co workers to vote yes.... to no avail.
They should have tied it into the usual "do you want clean air and water?" or some other bs and
more people would have voted for it.

Another sore pt. with me is... It's ridiculous what they charge. $80 for a annual All National Parks pass.
I forget what the state one is... I was willing to buy it ... but it was something like $125. geez
I don't think so.

I won't go into details of what they charge for backpacking at Coe... but that's another sore pt.
(for a 3 day trip it's more than 17 dollas though!)

---

Quote
chick-on

Quote
calipidder
Also, I hope all of the citizens of california are enjoying the extra $17 they have in their pocket due to voting down the funding last election. Do something nice with it.

Bingo

Yup. I tried like heck to convince my fellow co workers to vote yes.... to no avail.
They should have tied it into the usual "do you want clean air and water?" or some other bs and
more people would have voted for it.

Another sore pt. with me is... It's ridiculous what they charge. $80 for a annual All National Parks pass.
I forget what the state one is... I was willing to buy it ... but it was something like $125. geez
I don't think so.

I won't go into details of what they charge for backpacking at Coe... but that's another sore pt.
(for a 3 day trip it's more than 17 dollas though!)

It's actually $80 for an **all** federal recreation areas pass. I've actually been to a few Forest Service fee areas. Still - I thought it used to be $65 for a similar pass back in 2006. I do remember seeing an older "Golden Age" senior pass that listed the Tennessee Valley Authority as an agency that accepted the pass in lieu of regular fees. I think TVA has some recreation areas built around their dams.

I voted for the $17 fee. Of course that's $17 for each vehicle, but still a decent bargain.

Quote
y_p_w

I voted for the $17 fee. Of course that's $17 for each vehicle, but still a decent bargain.

It would have been a bargain and no brainer for us, who love the outdoors.

But what about those who have no interest in visiting the state parks? I can fully understand why this vehicle tax was voted down because the majority of Californians aren't die-hard outdoor enthusiast. I can also understand their logic: why should car owners subsidize the state parks, especially those who own multiple cars, while those who don't own a car don't have to contribute to the upkeep of the parks.

That measure was doomed to failure, unfortunately.

And frankly, if the state legislators think this was a very keen idea, they could, through legislation, raise California vehicle registration fees unilaterally to cover the costs of maintaining the state parks. No need for a vote of the people.

Quote
plawrence
It would have been a bargain and no brainer for us, who love the outdoors.

But what about those who have no interest in visiting the state parks? I can fully understand why this vehicle tax was voted down because the majority of Californians aren't die-hard outdoor enthusiast. I can also understand their logic: why should car owners subsidize the state parks, especially those who own multiple cars, while those who don't own a car don't have to contribute to the upkeep of the parks.

That measure was doomed to failure, unfortunately.

A sad, but telling, commentary on the subject can be seen in some news stories that appeared in the wake of the 1994 Northridge earthquake in Southern California.

Electrical power was lost in large sections of the Los Angeles area as the result of the temblor. Police, fire, and other departments throughout the region were inundated with telephone calls by people concerned/worried about the 'strange appearance' of the night sky... having never viewed it uncorrupted by the light pollution that exists in the metropolitan area.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/14/2011 01:15AM by szalkowski.

Quote
plawrence

Quote
y_p_w

I voted for the $17 fee. Of course that's $17 for each vehicle, but still a decent bargain.

It would have been a bargain and no brainer for us, who love the outdoors.

But what about those who have no interest in visiting the state parks? I can fully understand why this vehicle tax was voted down because the majority of Californians aren't die-hard outdoor enthusiast. I can also understand their logic: why should car owners subsidize the state parks, especially those who own multiple cars, while those who don't own a car don't have to contribute to the upkeep of the parks.

That measure was doomed to failure, unfortunately.

And frankly, if the state legislators think this was a very keen idea, they could, through legislation, raise California vehicle registration fees unilaterally to cover the costs of maintaining the state parks. No need for a vote of the people.

In Montana, there is a $4 per car add on fee to the car registration to allow entry into state parks. If you are in the park without that payment, you can be cited. However, at each yearly registration, the owner can opt out or just apply the fee to specific vehicles. It has allowed us to keep our state parks operational without inflaming the anti-tax crowd.

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

Everyone I know, even the non-outdoorsy types, use the state parts around here, regularly. Armstrong Woods is a favorite picnic site, as is Jack London. People going for a stroll through the Sonoma County Spring Lake park often hike up the access road to Annadel. Sugar Loaf is one people like to tell me about.

I do feel like this is just a black-mail measure to get us all riled up. It pisses me off to no end.

We both were willing to pay the $17. Even our die-hard no-new-taxes Tea Party friends were willing to pay it.

A simple way to help fund the parks would be to include in the state income tax returns a check-box where people could voluntary donate money directly to the California state park department. It probably wouldn't raise as much money as the $17 vehicle fee, but it probably would still generate a lot of additional revenue for the California state park system.

Here's the URL to an article that has some details:
http://www.thecalifornian.com/article/20110513/NEWS01/110513026/Shrinking-Calif-state-parks-70-close

I am concerned by all the Redwoods parks being closed...next thing you know, they will start logging them!

This reminds me of Silent Running -- wait a generation until no one remembers the parks......and then get rid of them, so no one realizes what they have lost in the first place.

Yeah, dramatic, but this really bothers me. (and YES, I voted to pay for them)

It is interesting that I posted this same list on another forum, and its business as usual -- no one has commented.

---

The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/13/2011 10:49PM by Bee.

Here's another article, from the San Francisco Chronicle, reporting on the state park closures.

SF Chronicle: 70 California state parks slated to close

And there's an interesting quote in the article:

"I don't want to give the impression that we're just mothballing them and putting them away," said California Parks Director Ruth Coleman, adding that some of the parks could probably be opened for special events if someone were willing to pay.

In other words, if a large wealthy corporation like Google or Cisco Systems would like to "rent out" a closed park for a special event, let's say their annual company picnic, they could. For the rest of us -- tough luck.

Welcome to the Old World. There was a quote somewhere stating that one of the most searing memories of poverty in Scotland that Carnegie remembered as a child was being locked out of the parks. (note that I did not say PUBLIC parks)

---

The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.

We are out of money, but if you go to a market in Glendale, every armenian (not being racial, that happens to be where I grew up) is paying their grocery bill with food stamps and driving a better car than I do. An Armenian friend says that Armenians take classes in armenia before they get here on how to get all the freebies specificaly in glendale, calif. We are out of money, but somehow we can afford to pay their groceries?

The $15B budget shortfall would cost each Californian about $1.25 a day to have it erased. Granted not each person can pay their one twenty five but there are those that can easily cover for a few people. The tax extension that is wallowing in Sacramento would basically cover the gap. Anybody have a logical explanation as to why the legislature doesn't want it to come before the voters??? I'll take my answer off the air.

---

Old Dude

The problem is then what to do about next year. The big problem is that the state's expenses have grown exponentially over the last 20 years -- far out pacing the rate of inflation. There needs to be some major changes to the State of California cost structure if this annual budget deficit is to be resolved once and for all. One major issue is the over-generous pension plan promised to state workers during the first dot.com boom. The state made commitments that it can't realistically meet based on the absurd notion back in the late 90's that the stock market was going to keep going up and up and up at such a fantastic rate.

A simply modification to the state pension system that could save billions of dollars over the years would be that state workers couldn't start collecting their retirement benefits until they turned 62 1/2 years of age. Right now you have state workers retiring in their early 50's that are going to be drawing on their generous pension package for many decades. Pensions were meant to be given to people who were at the traditional retirement age of 65. Just this simple change would save the state multiple billions of dollars every year.

You could start by repealing Prop 13 and assessing property taxes like most other states do. You have a lot of very rich property owners sitting on tremendously valuable property and paying trivial taxes. I lived in California for 40 years and, in my opinion, the budget and school funding problems started in the late 70's after Prop 13 froze property taxes.

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

Good luck getting that past the voters.

You don't think they'll start screaming bloody murder if their property taxes double or quadruple all of a sudden?

Besides, i think it's going to take more than just increasing revenue, they also need to stop spending so much!

Quote
qumqats

Besides, i think it's going to take more than just increasing revenue, they also need to stop spending so much!

That is the complaint every politician running for office makes and every voter thinks is a simple thing to accomplish. Unfortunately, government is what it is. There is very little corruption in California government and it is simply a bureaucracy that has some inertia and inefficiency. Public services cost money and sometime the exact benefit for each dollar spent is difficult to measure--- for example, what is the cost to society if a library closes one hour earlier each day? What is the cost if there is one fewer fire station in a city? We cannot run a society with the expectation that every dollar of taxes will be applied with absolutely perfect efficiency. The goal of public revenue is to create a good society and the current level of funding is slowly destroying the quality in California (most notable in the public schools). I have noticed that many public offices are very difficult to access currently by having either no phone number staffed by a real person or certain days during the week that they are closed. Very frustrating, but not the end of the world. Essentially with less funding, the bureaucracies simply become more bureaucratic and unresponsive-- they do not work more efficiently.

---

The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan

Quote
qumqats
Besides, i think it's going to take more than just increasing revenue, they also need to stop spending so much!

We could start with an amendment to require all propositions include revenue to pay for what they are requiring to be spent.

Quote
Frank Furter
You could start by repealing Prop 13 and assessing property taxes like most other states do. You have a lot of very rich property owners sitting on tremendously valuable property and paying trivial taxes. I lived in California for 40 years and, in my opinion, the budget and school funding problems started in the late 70's after Prop 13 froze property taxes.

That would be alright with me if they rolled back the state sales tax to what it was when Prop 13 passed (5% statewide sales tax) and reduced the vehicle registration fees, gasoline tax, utilities taxes, and the state income tax to what they were back in 1978.

Yes, property tax revenue went way down, but other taxes crept up to compensate for the loss of property tax revenue so actually Californians now are taxed more (per capita) than they were right after Prop 13 passed.

Personally, I think it's unfair to tax non-revenue generating property (personal property), which is why Prop 13 passed in the first place. Back then, a lot of retirees were being forced to sale their homes because they couldn't afford the ever increasing property tax as the value of their home skyrocketed during the 1970's. The big mistake of Prop 13 was including commercial property in the property tax rollback. Commercial (revenue generating) property should never have been included, IMHO.

Everybody wants a solution but hardly anyone wants it to hurt!