Could a $15 fee added to auto registrations save California’s state parks? The California Legislature’s Budget Conference Committee thought so, voting yesterday to remove state general fund dollars from state parks and replace them with the proposed fee. This post at Examiner.com says the committee voted on party lines: all the Democrats favored, all the Republicans opposed. I can’t help thinking: Do the Republicans really, truly, honestly think we should just padlock all our state parks and let them either a) rot; or b) fill up with gun-toting pot farmers? And lose the millions in revenue they generate for the parks’ neighbors? This is the party of commerce?
California gets back every dollar it spends on state parks several times over — and this fee could free the parks from the funding roller coaster the rest of the state is on. I know it’s infuriating to even think of taking state parks out of the general fund: the parks are our state’s capital. They need to be preserved and invested in for future generations, not made a pawn in Sacramento’s power games. Still, the state’s in a deep hole and the fee could keep the parks open till better times return and parks funding can be restored. I’m from the “80 percent of something is better than 100 percent of nothing” school, so I like the idea.
You can stop in at the California Parks Foundation’s page and join an e-mail campaign in support of the fee.
###
Required reading: The Mercury News guide to the state budget crisis.
This seems like the best possible solution. I have seen many different figures tossed around, $10, $15, $20. But this has worked in other states, and does represent the best way to avoid going through this turmoil every year. I think it would also mean that park access would become free for state residents. No more looking for exact change, or expensive annual passes. I am definately supporting vehicle licence fees for the parks. My letter will be forthcoming.
I find it absolutely abhorrent that they are asking for additional funds on top of the absurd tax burden this state already bears.
But with that said, I’d personally much rather see a one time $15 fee than 10x that amount in $7/visit fees.
Imagine how much worse the taxes would be without the two-thirds requirement for taxes and the budget.
I’m just as bleeding heart as the next guy but I know if the liberals in this state had their way they’d take the tax rate straight to 100 percent and then launch a campaign to make it 105.
As a lifelong conservation oriented voter, I’ve found I’m on the liberal side of most issues. There is a core of voters in this state that don’t give a crap about parks or anything else the state spends money on. If requires money out of their pocket, they don’t want it. Spending on k-12 and higher education doesn’t provide any immediate benefit to a taxpayer. The payoff comes 15 to 20 years later when those educated citizens start paying taxes. Those are the voters that got that 2/3 requirement in, and I know you are not one of them.
Somehow we have to break their grip and get in lawmakers that are problem solvers, not ideologues. I’m hoping redistricting will help on this, but a little pessimistic.
40% of state revenue is from income tax, 30% from sales tax, 8% from corporations, 7% highway and motor vehicle fees.
Outgo is about 50% education, 30% health & human services, and 10% corrections.
It is crazy to have an annual balanced budget requirement if the income is widely variable and the expenses are relatively fixed.
I’d like to see prop 13 killed so property is assessed fairly, and someone like Chevron isn’t paying trivial taxes just because they have had the property for 50 years. Have a tax credit for owner occupied single family dwellings.
Looking back on this, I’ve rambled a little. Guess I should have just bit my tongue. I won’t mind if you delete my comment.
Ralph: all good points, no need to delete anything.
I think that subconsciously most of the more liberal types (myself included) try to accept the anti-tax sentiments because we know there is no end to stuff needing fixing, all of which requires taking away from somebody and giving to somebody else.
I suspect the fabulous wealth California has generated over the years is the reason why everything was affordable for so long. I sometimes wonder if that era has closed, and that’s why we’re having such a hard time of it.
> It is crazy to have an annual balanced budget requirement if the income is widely variable and the expenses are relatively fixed.
The volitility is a direct response of the progressiveness of the tax code.
If you derive the majority of your tax revenue from high income individuals, you will see the variability inherent in their income streams.
If CA had shown *any* spending restraint during the boom years, I’d possibly believe thet the current issue was just the balanced budget requirement.
(If this were the case, we should be sitting on a large reserve, having just come off of the biggest boom in living memory)
> I’d like to see prop 13 killed so property is assessed fairly
This we agree on. Prop 13 is horrible policy and (at least) never should have been extended to include businesses.
I’d like to see the ballot initiatives thrown out alltogether- we have a representative democracy for a reason.
It is never a good idea to allow spending/budget decisions to be made by majority vote.
First off, I’m not from California, but am a frequent visitor to my state and other state parks.
I agree with all of the other posters that California (as well as just about every other state) has failed to be fiscally responsible. As a result of this irresponsibility they are doing just what big business is doing…cutting corners and looking for the easy way out. So their choice is to cut state parks, an easy target project b/c the states can claim that they are kind of gifts that the state has always provided to the public as long as it can afford it. As everyone on this board seems to know, this is a crock. State parks are about preservation, one of the few things I believe government should be doing.
I am glad the state is trying to find someway to fund this project (it should have never been cut from general funds, but like you said..80% beats 0. What I find abhorrent about this, however, is the complete partisanship in the state (again, not just in California). It seems that since 9/11, partisanship in this country’s political system has become so divisive that what appears to be a simple issue of importance can’t even be agreed upon. The party that I supported b/c of their free-market, small government principles died in 2001. Both groups have lost their common sense, but the current minority is exhibits it perfectly in this one vote. I feel ashamed to have aligned with some of these very politicians at one time or another (not that I now align with the other side, I don’t). I digress at the being a man without a party. I am concerned with the idea that no one can represent a free-market, small government constituent that also believes in environmental protection among other things (I see preservation as on of those externalities that none would care for voluntarility, like firemen and the police). This partisanship must end in the name of common sense. We can disagree about so many things, but does anyone believe that the state parks should not be funded in any way?
Here’s to the Democrats (even though not my party) for protecting something sacred to this nation, OUR LAND, OUR COUNTRY’S BEAUTY. I hate excessive taxes, but that is not the issue here. The issue here is the fiscal irresponsibility of the past and present politicians. Closing state parks or keeping them open does not fix the problem. There are numerous other wastes that need to be address in ALL of the states. The state parks are not a waste. Keep them open, and build fewer roads if necessary.
In a related note, I think we should all offer some appreciation to the federal government (for once) for opening up the national parks for free for a few weekends this year. Its nice to see an effort to open the parks up made, even while everyone else seems to grasping for every bill they can get their hands on.
Just as we need to challenge our leader’s bad efforts, let’s not forget to appreciate our leaders when they do something good.
Tom, I can’t afford the $15.00, can you please pay for my share. I’m sure like a good democrat you won’t have a problem with that.
Rich: I’ll pay your share if you promise never to breathe any of the clean air I get from all those forests
You and I both know the issue is not State Parks. Stae Parks are the indicator species for a much bigger problem…. The Dems at the state level can’t not live within their means and do not want to make the tough choices to bring the state within budget. State Parks are nothing more than a glitzy bargining chip to get people’s attention to pay higher taxes so they can gain more control over YOU and take more money from YOU….I breath clean air from the National Forests, they have more flora.
Rich: you’re just standing on the other side of an argument that the preservationists say reads as follows: do not do this because it lets the state off the hook for its obligations to fund the protection of its natural areas.
It’s a very sane proposal that is being dragged through the mud by both sides because they’d rather be pure than sensible.
$15 and free parking at all the parks is a great deal for people who actually use them. Everybody else benefits even if they don’t use them.
I certainly understand the urge to not release one thin dime to these spendaholics, but this fifteen-buck fee is not the way to do it.
Tennessee’s state parks were closed or open only on weekends for a few months as I recall as our governor threw a temper tantrum that he didn’t get his way on a tax proposal. We had the pay for access at some parks. I actually bought an annual pass to one of them I was there so much. It was a nightmare though… is your pass still up to date? Getting change, etc.
Amazing a few years ago after all that Tennessee got the honor of best state park system in the US. Many of our parks have very strong Friends groups that helped with maintenance and improvements costs and labor. I’m sure that won’t solve all the problems in CA as they didn’t here.
I really lament the fact that we have turned over these natural beauties over to politicians and bureaucrats to steward. There’s got to be a better way.