Frankly I'd rather see the state parks privatized anyway. Currently the money feeds an inefficient bureaucracy that uses much of it for things other than parks improvements and maintenance. Lease them to private business and the end users (us) would likely get much better managed and maintained parks and the state could get a portion of the revenue to add to their general fund.
After looking at the list, not much would change for me if implemented.
I voted for Arnie, but I don’t think he’s bright enough to balance anything, including the budget. Like always, the politicians put emotional stuff on the table. Arnie proposed a 10% cut, but what does that mean? How does he do that with constitutional amendments that grant specific funding for all sorts of stuff? This fiscal mandate represents perhaps 80% of the budget, as pointed out by dave54. The fact is virtually any department in the state could cut 10% and feel no pain at all, and have little effect on services. But in the case of the California State Parks, there’s no information to be found to even evaluate the effect of a 10% reduction, or the alternatives considered. Their website doesn’t even provide any budget information. But, I have little doubt there are better ways to implement a budget reduction without closing a single park or campground.
Bureaucrats are not the brightest lights on the string. A few years ago when California experienced the politically induced electrical energy shortfall, which translated means buying more expensive power, the State Parks Dept. shut off the electrical power at some full hook-up state campgrounds. Then in a stroke of genius, they reduced the fee from roughly $30 to $15 per night. The fact is, the most power hungry RV couldn’t use $15 worth of power per night, which is equal to 75 kwh in one night. So, the state effectively and brilliantly eliminated a revenue source. As it turns out, after some inquiries, I learned the Parks Department paid for the power from their department funds. The revenue generated went directly to the state general fund. So, the Parks Department, protected their own funds by reducing their power bill, but the general fund suffered a revenue loss far greater than the reduction enjoyed by the department.
So Arnie’s proposal, aside from being a pile of bovine fecal matter, isn’t even presented in a rational form. This is not unlike most politicians. Perhaps every department head should be told he will provide the same level of service, with a 10% budget reduction, or should think about looking for a new job. You can be sure they will find a way to get the job done.
Richard L. Miller
2001 Safari Zanzibar, 38'
2003 Jeep Liberty Toad
Amateur Radio KJ6W
dalton4 wrote: It is probably a way to get a sizable user fee increase. Build the case for closing them and the people will ask for or agree to higher fees to keep them open.
I think you've nailed it. It's a political gambit.
Surrounding local governments should call the governor's bluff and demand the State deed over any parks and campgrounds it no longer wants to operate.
You can bet that my own County of Orange would jump at the chance to get the deeds to Huntington and San Clemente State Beaches if they ever came available.
State Parks kind of lost their direction when they were forced into law enforcement. Once again, ill mannered people and their drama wrecked a good thing.
2008 Dodge 3500 CTD LB SRW 4X4 6-Speed Auto
P3 Blue Ox Sway Pro
2007 Komfort 212
Can you spell RECALL. First they say parks will close, libraries will close, police and fire will be cut back. They never say THEY will stop hiring "consultants" also spelled "friends". They will not cut back on State vehicles for everyone in office and their staff. Free parking for State officers. How about the San Fernando Valley Agricultural Fair, where no animals were allowed, only beer, and hispanic entertainment, a money losing event sponsored by the State. Once again, can you spell RECALL.
Time to return the parks to campgrounds and not RV resorts, no power water or sewer on any sites, maintenance costs are to high for those and they should be the realm of private businesses. Raise the costs of the prime areas to where they should be, beach sites in the $75 a night range.
w6pea wrote: I guess freedom of speech is not allowed here.
The bottom line is the State of California would rather feed and cloth and educate illegal aliens and give them drivers lic. and free medical care rather than take care of tax paying US citizens.
The State has all kinds of people in the State Prisons that county do the maintenance. But they say that would cost too much.
If most of these parks were turned over to private enterprise, they would probably turn a profit. I have worked closely with many state agencies here in CA. and haven't yet seen to many supervisors that know how to run a business. If we, in the private sector, ran our businesses the way our state does business we would all be filling bankruptcy. JMHO
See 'ya on top
Keith
w6pea wrote: I guess freedom of speech is not allowed here.
Well Sweet Pea, I guess you conveniently did not bother to read the forum rules and do not understand politically charged posts are not allowed on the forum.
Offline
