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.

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.

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.

On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 8:56 AM,

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.