V Bit Set

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?

The State Park Access Pass program creates a new tax. As a State we can not spend our way out of the current financial crisis. If every program threatened with cost reduction seeks a dedicated source of funding we will double the State budget not halve it.

The State Park Access Pass funding source is not logical. It is not any more reasonable to think that the State Parks should benefit from vehicle license fees than emergency services who respond to vehicle accidents or education that relies on vehicles to transport students and staff to schools. Also consider the case of the two car family who has paid $30 in vehicle license fees to access the State Parks and who will have an additional fee to pay when they rent an RV to visit the State Parks.

The State Park Access Pass program removes entry fees as a way of moderating park traffic. Certain high traffic parks have entry fees that can be used to discourage casual visitors and encourage repeat visitors to visit less crowded parks. Removing this tool from the State Park system will cause additional crowding at the most popular parks.

The State Park Access Pass program is a regressive tax. It shifts the burden for the State Parks away from the wealthy, who typically bear the largest burden of the State Budget. It places an additional burden on the poor.

In conclusion, no matter how strongly we support individual State programs, the time has come for us to stop letting special interests of any kind drive the State budget. We need a well thought out budget that allocates a reasonable amount of revenue between the necessary programs and accept the cuts that will inevitably follow.