Jump to content

Shutting California State Parks


Renegade Knight
Followers 0

Recommended Posts

Here in Nebraska they shut down a few of the state parks and rec areas a few years ago over a budget dispute. One was left open to the public but had zero people or services. Another, they closed the front gate and posted a sign for no entrance. Seemed like an odd thing to me. Those were 2 locals ones - don't know about the rest of the state.

Edited by StarBrand
Link to comment

Wow, that's a huge list!

 

I thinking it's got to be a scare tactic, or something.

 

Don't count on it.

 

We had our parks closed here last summer while the gubner fought the budget. They literally kicked the people camping out at midnight. They then gated the parks and posted the stay outs. I have several caches in one of the parks and asked what I should do. They said don't worry about it...for the short term. If the dispute would have lingered they'd have had me disable them.

Link to comment
I'm wonding how exactly do you shut down a park. Do they post no trespassing signs and fire all the staff? Do they just pull staff, board up the buildings and let people enjoy the remnant?

 

Geocaching tie in: If they literally shut down parks, do the caches have to be pulled?

 

48 State parks are on the list.

I would guess that they would post the closure with all the legalities at the park entrances. I didn't even know they were planning on doing this. :grin:
Link to comment
I'm wonding how exactly do you shut down a park. Do they post no trespassing signs and fire all the staff? Do they just pull staff, board up the buildings and let people enjoy the remnant?

 

Geocaching tie in: If they literally shut down parks, do the caches have to be pulled?

 

48 State parks are on the list.

I would guess that they would post the closure with all the legalities at the park entrances. I didn't even know they were planning on doing this. :grin:

 

Who is going to enforce those legalities... a park ranger? LOL! :)

Link to comment
I'm wonding how exactly do you shut down a park. Do they post no trespassing signs and fire all the staff? Do they just pull staff, board up the buildings and let people enjoy the remnant?

 

Geocaching tie in: If they literally shut down parks, do the caches have to be pulled?

 

48 State parks are on the list.

I would guess that they would post the closure with all the legalities at the park entrances. I didn't even know they were planning on doing this. :grin:

 

Close the doors, lock he gates, turn out the lights. I really don't care. I don't use any of those parks so to me they are a total waste of money. Close 'em all tomorrow for all I care.

 

If the state gubmint can't figure it out, they can just give me a call. It ain't that big of a deal.

 

Send someone by once a week or so just to check on the place, that's it. Need repairs? That's what non-violent prisoners are for.

 

This just isn't that complicated.

Edited by Team Cotati
Link to comment
I'm wonding how exactly do you shut down a park. Do they post no trespassing signs and fire all the staff? Do they just pull staff, board up the buildings and let people enjoy the remnant?

 

Geocaching tie in: If they literally shut down parks, do the caches have to be pulled?

 

48 State parks are on the list.

I would guess that they would post the closure with all the legalities at the park entrances. I didn't even know they were planning on doing this. :o

 

Close the doors, lock he gates, turn out the lights. I really don't care. I don't use any of those parks so to me they are a total waste of money. Close 'em all tomorrow for all I care.

 

If the state gubmint can't figure it out, they can just give me a call. It ain't that big of a deal.

 

Send someone by once a week or so just to check on the place, that's it. Need repairs? That's what non-violent prisoners are for.

 

This just isn't that complicated.

 

I'm glad you don't speak for all!!

Link to comment
I'm wonding how exactly do you shut down a park. Do they post no trespassing signs and fire all the staff? Do they just pull staff, board up the buildings and let people enjoy the remnant?

 

Geocaching tie in: If they literally shut down parks, do the caches have to be pulled?

 

48 State parks are on the list.

I would guess that they would post the closure with all the legalities at the park entrances. I didn't even know they were planning on doing this. :o
Close the doors, lock he gates, turn out the lights. I really don't care. I don't use any of those parks so to me they are a total waste of money. Close 'em all tomorrow for all I care.

 

If the state gubmint can't figure it out, they can just give me a call. It ain't that big of a deal.

 

Send someone by once a week or so just to check on the place, that's it. Need repairs? That's what non-violent prisoners are for.

 

This just isn't that complicated.

I'm going to assume that you are being serious, even though history suggests otherwise.

 

In my opinion, we need more parks, not less. Think of the caches like this one that would be lost if parks were closed.

Edited by sbell111
Link to comment

I wonder if they closed Anza Borrego Desert State Park and sent the Rangers home and relocated the Superitendent if we could put our caches back out there . . . ? :)

 

But seriously, here in San Diego, they are proposing the closure of several State Beaches. Uh, how do you close a beach . . . ? :o

Link to comment

It's sad to think this is a possibility.

 

The lock the gates, drop the staff and just send out patrols to ticket those who ignore the closures...... :)

 

But I too wonder how they close a beach - like Huntington no less!

 

We've got 5 beaches on the list less than 10 miles from home - and the largest State Park in N Cal, too! :o

Link to comment

I wonder if they closed Anza Borrego Desert State Park and sent the Rangers home and relocated the Superitendent if we could put our caches back out there . . . ? :)

 

But seriously, here in San Diego, they are proposing the closure of several State Beaches. Uh, how do you close a beach . . . ? :o

 

Uh yeah, people that can't figure out how to close a beach?.......they can give me a call too.

 

It's really big time rocket science. Far beyond the capabilities of anyone else.

 

Bring money, lots and lots of money.

 

Have mercy. :):D:)

Link to comment
I'm wonding how exactly do you shut down a park. Do they post no trespassing signs and fire all the staff? Do they just pull staff, board up the buildings and let people enjoy the remnant?

 

Geocaching tie in: If they literally shut down parks, do the caches have to be pulled?

 

48 State parks are on the list.

I would guess that they would post the closure with all the legalities at the park entrances. I didn't even know they were planning on doing this. :o

 

Close the doors, lock he gates, turn out the lights. I really don't care. I don't use any of those parks so to me they are a total waste of money. Close 'em all tomorrow for all I care.

 

If the state gubmint can't figure it out, they can just give me a call. It ain't that big of a deal.

 

Send someone by once a week or so just to check on the place, that's it. Need repairs? That's what non-violent prisoners are for.

 

This just isn't that complicated.

 

OMG!! I find myself actually agreeing with Team Cotati for once! National Forest lands.... superb!! National Parks... I hate the politics, but much better than private enterprise. State Forests... better than State Parks. State Parks... slightly better than tourist traps. Tourist Traps... nevermind.

Link to comment

It's pretty hard to imagine a situation involving the closing of state recreational shore or forestland that doesn't end in a developer taking a bulldozer to the whole place. I suppose there would be little else to do, other than to remove the rangers, maintenance staff, and lifeguards, and throw up your hands in anguish when people complain about litter or drownings.

Link to comment

I wonder if they closed Anza Borrego Desert State Park and sent the Rangers home and relocated the Superitendent if we could put our caches back out there . . . ? :)

 

But seriously, here in San Diego, they are proposing the closure of several State Beaches. Uh, how do you close a beach . . . ? :o

 

Uh yeah, people that can't figure out how to close a beach?.......they can give me a call too.

 

It's really big time rocket science. Far beyond the capabilities of anyone else.

 

Bring money, lots and lots of money.

 

Have mercy. :):D:)

Don't it always seem to go

That you don't know what you've got

'Til it's gone

They paved paradise

And put up a parking lot

Link to comment

This is just a scare tactic and will not happen.

 

Commentators on KCRW were discussing this tonight.

 

Say you have a continuum of solutions to a problem: minor < moderate < harsh < radical

 

Basically you initially propose something radical, so the public will accept something slightly less radical but still harsh.

 

Closing the parks (to raise only $17 million, per the document) is not necessary when you could simply raise entrance fees to raise the same amount of money. That is much more likely to happen. (raised fees)

 

-Ben

Edited by benh57
Link to comment
But seriously, here in San Diego, they are proposing the closure of several State Beaches. Uh, how do you close a beach . . . ?

 

Well, the link from the post used the phrase "lifeguard reductions."

 

Not sure if that means you swim at your own peril......or if you can swim at all.....or if life guard are like park rangers......

Link to comment

According to an article at SF Gate.com

 

The parks, which would not close until the governor and Legislature agree on a spending plan sometime later this year, would be off-limits until the state's financial situation improves, officials said.

 

Money will be spent for patrols to keep people out of the closed parks, officials said.

.

 

Sounds like they're doing more than just closing the gate. How they plan on enforcing this, I don't know. Seems like this would cost more than keeping the parks open.

 

DCC

Link to comment

This is just a scare tactic and will not happen.

 

Commentators on KCRW were discussing this tonight.

 

Say you have a continuum of solutions to a problem: minor < moderate < harsh < radical

 

Basically you initially propose something radical, so the public will accept something slightly less radical but still harsh.

 

Closing the parks (to raise only $17 million, per the document) is not necessary when you could simply raise entrance fees to raise the same amount of money. That is much more likely to happen. (raised fees)

 

-Ben

I agree. I remember when California tried this same scare tactic 10+ years ago, citing budget woes. Slightly different set of parks on the list then, including Butano, where I was a docent. No parks/beaches got closed, they somehow found the money....

Edited by hydnsek
Link to comment

It's pretty hard to imagine a situation involving the closing of state recreational shore or forestland that doesn't end in a developer taking a bulldozer to the whole place. I suppose there would be little else to do, other than to remove the rangers, maintenance staff, and lifeguards, and throw up your hands in anguish when people complain about litter or drownings.

 

Oh gosh, yes, privatization and condominiums.

Link to comment

Texas threatened to close a bunch of parks last year too but backed off after huge public outcry so hopefully the same thing will happen in the Sunshine State. "Somehow" our wonderful governor and legislature found the funds to keep the parks open. Why it doesn't occur to anyone to charge more than $2 to $5 to enter the parks is beyond me. Seems like such an obvious way to raise revenue. :D

Link to comment

This is just a scare tactic and will not happen.

 

Commentators on KCRW were discussing this tonight.

 

Say you have a continuum of solutions to a problem: minor < moderate < harsh < radical

 

Basically you initially propose something radical, so the public will accept something slightly less radical but still harsh.

 

Closing the parks (to raise only $17 million, per the document) is not necessary when you could simply raise entrance fees to raise the same amount of money. That is much more likely to happen. (raised fees)

 

-Ben

I agree. I remember when California tried this same scare tactic 10+ years ago, citing budget woes. Slightly different set of parks on the list then, including Butano, where I was a docent. No parks/beaches got closed, they somehow found the money....

 

Not this time. Oh they probably won't close them all as proposed, but close some they will. Good move from where I stand.

Link to comment

This is just a scare tactic and will not happen.

 

Commentators on KCRW were discussing this tonight.

 

Say you have a continuum of solutions to a problem: minor < moderate < harsh < radical

 

Basically you initially propose something radical, so the public will accept something slightly less radical but still harsh.

 

Closing the parks (to raise only $17 million, per the document) is not necessary when you could simply raise entrance fees to raise the same amount of money. That is much more likely to happen. (raised fees)

 

-Ben

I agree. I remember when California tried this same scare tactic 10+ years ago, citing budget woes. Slightly different set of parks on the list then, including Butano, where I was a docent. No parks/beaches got closed, they somehow found the money....

 

Not this time. Oh they probably won't close them all as proposed, but close some they will. Good move from where I stand.

 

Which I'm assuming is somewhere outside of CA. But still pretty selfish, however you look at it.

Link to comment
This is just a scare tactic and will not happen.

 

Commentators on KCRW were discussing this tonight.

 

Say you have a continuum of solutions to a problem: minor < moderate < harsh < radical

 

Basically you initially propose something radical, so the public will accept something slightly less radical but still harsh.

 

Closing the parks (to raise only $17 million, per the document) is not necessary when you could simply raise entrance fees to raise the same amount of money. That is much more likely to happen. (raised fees)

 

-Ben

I agree. I remember when California tried this same scare tactic 10+ years ago, citing budget woes. Slightly different set of parks on the list then, including Butano, where I was a docent. No parks/beaches got closed, they somehow found the money....
Not this time. Oh they probably won't close them all as proposed, but close some they will. Good move from where I stand.
Which I'm assuming is somewhere outside of CA. But still pretty selfish, however you look at it.
Selfish or trollish, I'm not sure which.
Link to comment

Just ignore those posts - he's looking for an argument and to stir things up. Lots of broad statements with not back- up.

 

On topic, the local chatter is that this isn't the first time this has happened and it's likely politics at play. The consensus from those who saw it before is that it will likely blow over.

 

I can only hope...

Link to comment
Just ignore those posts - he's looking for an argument and to stir things up. Lots of broad statements with not back- up.

 

On topic, the local chatter is that this isn't the first time this has happened and it's likely politics at play. The consensus from those who saw it before is that it will likely blow over.

 

I can only hope...

I've heard the same thing...
Link to comment
This is just a scare tactic and will not happen.

 

Commentators on KCRW were discussing this tonight.

 

Say you have a continuum of solutions to a problem: minor < moderate < harsh < radical

 

Basically you initially propose something radical, so the public will accept something slightly less radical but still harsh.

 

Closing the parks (to raise only $17 million, per the document) is not necessary when you could simply raise entrance fees to raise the same amount of money. That is much more likely to happen. (raised fees)

 

-Ben

I agree. I remember when California tried this same scare tactic 10+ years ago, citing budget woes. Slightly different set of parks on the list then, including Butano, where I was a docent. No parks/beaches got closed, they somehow found the money....
Not this time. Oh they probably won't close them all as proposed, but close some they will. Good move from where I stand.
Which I'm assuming is somewhere outside of CA. But still pretty selfish, however you look at it.
Selfish or trollish, I'm not sure which.

 

In times of severe budget shortfalls, closing little used state parks makes perfect sense to all but the ill informed, short sighted, self-interested and irrational.

 

They managed to carry the ball this far without my direct input. I have every confidence that they can make the push the last five yards without it also. However if you were to hear that they are having trouble obtaining the orbs to make it to the end zone, please do let them know that I am available.

Edited by Team Cotati
Link to comment
This is just a scare tactic and will not happen.

 

Commentators on KCRW were discussing this tonight.

 

Say you have a continuum of solutions to a problem: minor < moderate < harsh < radical

 

Basically you initially propose something radical, so the public will accept something slightly less radical but still harsh.

 

Closing the parks (to raise only $17 million, per the document) is not necessary when you could simply raise entrance fees to raise the same amount of money. That is much more likely to happen. (raised fees)

 

-Ben

I agree. I remember when California tried this same scare tactic 10+ years ago, citing budget woes. Slightly different set of parks on the list then, including Butano, where I was a docent. No parks/beaches got closed, they somehow found the money....
Not this time. Oh they probably won't close them all as proposed, but close some they will. Good move from where I stand.
Which I'm assuming is somewhere outside of CA. But still pretty selfish, however you look at it.
Selfish or trollish, I'm not sure which.

 

In times of severe budget shortfalls, closing little used state parks makes perfect sense to all but the ill informed, short sighted, self-interested and irrational.

 

They managed to carry the ball this far without my direct input. I have every confidence that they can make the push the last five yards without it also. However if you were to hear that they are having trouble obtaining the orbs to make it to the end zone, please do let them know that I am available.

 

:D Whatever. I guess I'm a proud member of the "ill informed, short sighted, self-interested and irrational" club! When do I get my membership card? I don't leave in CA, but I still think it stinks. However, I'll tell anyone who asks that a naked, trolling, self-proclaimed 'hottie' is willing to help them with... whatever, I guess.

 

I guess this is the proverbial next step though. Close this state park to caching, close this other one to EVERYONE... God forbid anyone actually get the chance to ENJOY them. Why not just raise the admission fee, otherwise, like previous posters have sensibly suggested?

Link to comment

Which would be better -- raise taxes to provide for non-necessary services like parks, or follow a fiscally conservative measure of reducing government spending to meet a budget shortfall?

 

(From what I understand, the Guvernator's proposal is pretty across-the-board... parks, schools, governmental offices, etc.)

Link to comment

Which would be better -- raise taxes to provide for non-necessary services like parks, or follow a fiscally conservative measure of reducing government spending to meet a budget shortfall?

 

(From what I understand, the Guvernator's proposal is pretty across-the-board... parks, schools, governmental offices, etc.)

 

So....schools are "non-necessary" too?

Link to comment

Which would be better -- raise taxes to provide for non-necessary services like parks, or follow a fiscally conservative measure of reducing government spending to meet a budget shortfall?

 

(From what I understand, the Guvernator's proposal is pretty across-the-board... parks, schools, governmental offices, etc.)

 

So....schools are "non-necessary" too?

 

Sometimes. Many rural communities are losing schools because the population base doesn't support the necessity for a local school anymore.

Link to comment

Which would be better -- raise taxes to provide for non-necessary services like parks, or follow a fiscally conservative measure of reducing government spending to meet a budget shortfall?

 

(From what I understand, the Guvernator's proposal is pretty across-the-board... parks, schools, governmental offices, etc.)

 

So....schools are "non-necessary" too?

 

The problem with schools in California isn't the amount of money we spend (I've heard, but can't confirm that education is 40% of the entire state budget) but how that money is used. Much like with health care, the majority of money we throw at it goes to administration. Again, much like the health care system, the public education system is broken and spending more won't fix it when it just means some administrator makes $300,000 a year rather than $200,000.

 

And it's not all the State Government's doing either. In 2004 59% of California voters voted yes on proposition 71 that has the state spending on average 200 million a year on Stem Cell research. We couldn't afford it then, and we can't afford it now, and we'll be paying off those bonds until 2014! So I guess we reap what we sow.

 

That and the fact that we elect these idiots who spend money that we don't have on their pet programs like there's a never ending supply.

 

DCC

Link to comment

Which would be better -- raise taxes to provide for non-necessary services like parks, or follow a fiscally conservative measure of reducing government spending to meet a budget shortfall?

 

(From what I understand, the Guvernator's proposal is pretty across-the-board... parks, schools, governmental offices, etc.)

 

So....schools are "non-necessary" too?

 

The problem with schools in California isn't the amount of money we spend (I've heard, but can't confirm that education is 40% of the entire state budget) but how that money is used. Much like with health care, the majority of money we throw at it goes to administration. Again, much like the health care system, the public education system is broken and spending more won't fix it when it just means some administrator makes $300,000 a year rather than $200,000.

 

And it's not all the State Government's doing either. In 2004 59% of California voters voted yes on proposition 71 that has the state spending on average 200 million a year on Stem Cell research. We couldn't afford it then, and we can't afford it now, and we'll be paying off those bonds until 2014! So I guess we reap what we sow.

 

That and the fact that we elect these idiots who spend money that we don't have on their pet programs like there's a never ending supply.

 

DCC

I agree. We waste so much money that it's ridiculous. Over two-million women have crossed the border illegally and hatched a kid so they could ride the "it's all free" train the rest of their lives never having paid in a dime.

 

As far as parks go, sell passes to help pay for them. That way all the tourists enjoying the parks also pay. Also get rid of rangers that are running around picking up caches. Why are we paying taxes for that? They could even charge 10 bucks/cache to help raise some money.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Followers 0
×
×
  • Create New...