Parks don't cost much, - closing them would
Posted: Mon Jun 08, 2009 7:42 am
Parks don't cost much, - closing them would
Tom Stienstra
Sunday, June 7, 2009
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 1817AT.DTL" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
To start the day Monday, what some say is D-Day for California's state parks, Gov. Schwarzenegger could set a state tax dollar on his desk.
He could then cut that dollar in half, that is, the half that goes to K-12 education, and then convert rest to change. Of the remaining 50 cents, he could then sweep 12 cents into a jar, the money that goes to state prisons. Of the remaining 38 cents that pays for everything else, the governor could take one single penny and cut it into 10 tiny pieces.
Under a microscope, he could then admire one of those pieces and say, "Look how much money I can save from the tax dollar by closing 220 state parks. I could save one-tenth of one percent of the general fund. What a deal!"
Schwarzenegger could then call in the state's economic advisers and his vice governors to discuss how to spin this in a press conference. "I'm not really closing state parks. We're just going to have them pay their own way. We must save the budget for the great state of California." This is an excellent idea, his advisers agree: "Just have all state parks pay their own way."
To keep parks open and operate as they are now, the Department of State Parks would have to triple user fees. Entrance fees would average $18 per vehicle. Visiting a state beach in Southern California would cost $30. Camping would cost $60 to $100 per night, more at Monterey Bay. If there was a decrease in visits, the fees could be raised again. "The parks must pay their own way," the governor might say. "If they can't, we'll have to close them."
At that point, continuing our scenario, a tax expert for the state might point out: "According to a study by UC Berkeley economists, for every dollar we put into State Parks, we're actually investing $2.35 into the general fund from sales tax and jobs. When you look at the multiplier effect, all the money in support of trips to parks, closures would devastate local economies."
The tax expert could cite a case in point from last year. "When fires closed Pfeiffer Big Sur State Park for 10 months, State Parks lost $2 million in revenue from user fees and the Big Sur community reported it lost $40 million in total revenue from the multiplier effect."
Schwarzenegger would likely then survey his vice governors. "All this makes me look like an idiot, to think cutting off State Parks would solve our budget deficit. Why have you advised me to do this?"
"We are in crisis and we must act immediately," answers one.
If the cuts take effect, State Parks would stay open until Labor Day, explained a bean counter. After that, Ruth Coleman, the director of State Parks, would then be forced to order parks closed. Only parks that produce positive revenue would stay open. California parks would then cascade into oblivion, including 60 of 61 redwood parks.
Last year, roughly 80 million people used state parks, mentions an economist.
If this proposal were to take place, come fall at the governor's office, Gov. Schwarzenegger could review that 220 state parks were closed, and then hold up that slice of a penny, and proudly say, "Look what we did to save California."
E-mail Tom Stienstra at tstienstra@sfchronicle.com.
This article appeared on page C - 11 of the San Francisco Chronicle