Common Misconceptions about the State Park Access Pass program

While I wait for the California State Park Foundation to publish an updated FAQ, I would like to tackle some misconceptions about the proposed State Park Access Pass.

First we visit the Mono Lake Committee staff blog who tell us, “If the new funding source does not survive that process, then 80% of the parks close.” This is false, both the elimination of the state park system from the general fund and the SPAP must be voted on. Tell your legislator to continue funding the state parks from the general fund, not through yet another vehicle fee. How many legislators will vote to defund the parks without a replacement funding source?

Many people on Facebook think the issue here is whether all Californians should support the state park system. In support of the SPAP Debra Brittain says, “The parks are there for future generations, not only for those who choose to use the parks now. It is not unfair to ask everyone in the State to maintain the parks.” Currently the general fund as well as usage fees support the state park system so currently everyone in California does support the park system. That is not the issue.

There are two real differences between supporting the state park system through the general fund and via a vehicle licensing fee. First the vehicle license fee is a new tax that would increase the total state budget. Second the vehicle license fee is a regressive tax, putting a disproportionate tax burden on the poor.

Update:

Modern Hiker incorrectly offers, “And, of course, because it takes a tremendous stride toward democratizing the state park system.” This is the stereotypical view of the current park user. Fearful of losing access to the park and grabbing on to any funding mechanism to support them they fail to look at the proposal critically. Removal of usage fees, and conversion of funding from the general fund to a vehicle licensing fee is not democratization. A regressive tax is, if anything, anti-democratic. The California State Park Foundation has done a wonderful job of selling their agenda of funding before accountability to the park loving masses.
Update:

Pete Thomas of the LA Times Blog Outpost parrots the California State Parks Foundation’s press release with his Good News, Bad News post. To avoid the term tax hike, he uses terms like surcharge to note that the increased VLF is simply replacing funding from the general fund. He thinks opposition will be from non-park users but who, after reviewing this proposal, would support a $143 million dollar tax increase with no accountability and no long term solution to the problems of how the state parks are managed?

Tags: california state parks, state park access pass, state parks

This entry was posted on Tuesday, June 16th, 2009 at 5:39 am and is filed under Opinion, Travel. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Casey

Is the current offering a perfect solution for the state parks? No, probably not. But it's definitely a vast improvement on the previous solution of "let's just close everything," wouldn't you agree?

It is impossible for California to maintain current services or even fractions of current services without increasing taxes or fees. It's exactly that kind of "I want all the presents but don't want to pay for them," along with our long-abused proposition system, that got this state into its current budget situation.

scerruti

No I don't agree, primarily because the choice isn't to close all the parks, it is to cut off general fund money to the state park system.

Once that is done it will be up to the managers of the state parks to determine the best course of action to reduce spending and to identify other sources of funding, including increasing usage fees. I keep hearing people in support of this saying that they have no problem with paying $15 for an annual pass, but that means they have no problem forcing everyone else to do the same. Would you be willing to pay $30 for the same privilege? $150?

The assumption put forth by the California State Parks Foundation is that the state park system must be funded at a certain level or it can't exist. This is simply not true. We need a healthy state park system, and if that means a smaller state park system then so be it. But what we really need is a flexible state park system that can respond to budget pressures year after year by adjusting its spending to match the income the state receives.

I certainly am not stating that we must keep all of the parks open, I am arguing that putting the parks as a special interest opens the door for every other special interest to do the same with the result of massively increasing state spending.