Shutting California State Parks

[+Renegade Knight]

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.

[+StarBrand]

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 January 10, 2008 by StarBrand

[+sbell111]

I've seen some that were closed by simply gating the entrance to the parking areas and no longer maintaining any of the grounds/facilities.

[+FamilyDNA]

Wow, that's a huge list!

 

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

[+Rockin Roddy]

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.

[+egami]

I know an entire wildlife refuge I'd offer up for closing...

[+TrailGators]

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.

[knowschad]

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.

 

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

[+Team Cotati]

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.

 

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 January 11, 2008 by Team Cotati

[+TrailGators]

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.

Ya our money is much better spent paying for this....

[+Rockin Roddy]

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.

 

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!!

[+sbell111]

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.

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 January 11, 2008 by sbell111

[+Miragee]

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 . . . ?

[+sbell111]

I thought the Governator fixed all of California's problems.

[+Kealia]

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!

[+tozainamboku]

Given the number of people who find the three caches I have hidden in one of the parks on the list, they might as well close the park

[+TrailGators]

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

Son of a Beach!

[+FamilyDNA]

I thought the Governator fixed all of California's problems.

This is all from his budget proposal.

[+Team Cotati]

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 . . . ?

 

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.

[knowschad]

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.

 

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.

[+MountainRacer]

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.

[+TrailGators]

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 . . . ?

 

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.

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

[+desmo13]

Nice, when they close down Redwood up north, we can go back to mountainbiking in the redwoods like we used to before they kicked us off

[+benh57]

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 January 11, 2008 by benh57

[+PhxChem]

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......

[+Driver Carries Cache]

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

[+hydnsek]

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 January 11, 2008 by hydnsek

[+sbell111]

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

The last time I was in the area, I stayed in a hotel just across PCH from that beach. It was a great place to walk in the mornings and DNF a cache or two.

[Luckless]

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.

[+Renegade Knight]

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

 

It is a negotiating tactic I've seen used by government agencies many a time.

[+9Key]

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.

[+sbell111]

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. ...

Is Florida threatening to do the same thing?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 11, 2008 by sbell111

[+Team Cotati]

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.

[+sbell111]

Thankfully, they probably won't solicit the opinions of naked guys when they make the final decision.

[+Sioneva]

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.

[+sbell111]

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.

[+Kealia]

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...

[+TrailGators]

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...

[+9Key]

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. ...

Is Florida threatening to do the same thing?

D'oh! I meant "Golden" State.

[+9Key]

Thankfully, they probably won't solicit the opinions of naked guys when they make the final decision.

Pwn3d!

[+9Key]

double post

Edited January 11, 2008 by 9Key

[+Team Cotati]

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 January 11, 2008 by Team Cotati

[+Sioneva]

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.

 

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?

[+Metaphor]

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.)

[+Kealia]

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?

[+egami]

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.

[+Driver Carries Cache]

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

[+TrailGators]

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.

[+hydnsek]

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.

Yep, the previous round is what I ref'd in post 27 above.

Edited January 12, 2008 by hydnsek

[+TrailGators]

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.

Yep, the previous round is what I ref'd in post 27 above.

It does wake people up. I'm sure that it was Arnie is doing.