CA State Park Closure is short sighted and bad business

This past weekend I joined http://www.calparks.orgto petition our CA elected leaders to not close the CA state parks. Part of the joining process also sent an email to gov. schwarzenegger as well as my state sen. and state rep. The response from the governor's office is below.

My problem with the response is that the state parks actually generate more revenue for the state than they cost. It's a profit center. A UC Berkeley study shows that the state park system generates $2.35 for every $1.00 funded. Some estimates put this at a loss of $350 million in the state coffers. Tom Stienstra wrote a good article on sfgate.com with a few specific examples of where the parks provide more revenue than the cost, quite a bit more.

So I say, do this smart and not knee jerk, which is what seems to be happening. Raise the rates, sure. Reduce some of the services.


Here's the letter from the Governor's office
------

Thank you for writing to me about funding for our state parks system. Your input is important to me during these challenging times.

California's natural beauty is renowned throughout the world, and I have made it my priority to protect our environment so future generations of Californians can continue to experience and enjoy what we have all come to love. Our state parks provide a fantastic introduction to the California experience and help bring our residents and visitors closer to our landscapes.

Unfortunately, the state cannot continue to bear the costs of supporting every program. Believe me when I say that these cuts have been the hardest decisions of my career as Governor, but we are in the midst of the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. Our revenues for the coming year are at least 27 percent below where they were projected to be just two short years ago. We now face a shortfall that has grown to $24.3 billion, and the people of California have made their voice clear: they want the state to live within its means and solve its problems through spending cuts and not tax increases.

To help manage our budget shortfall, I have proposed eliminating General Fund support for the Department of Parks and Recreation. I understand that these cuts will impact not only the lives of our park employees but the millions of park visitors who visit these national treasurers every year. In spite of these General Fund cuts, though, I will work to keep as many parks open as possible with funding from user fees. It may require raising entry and camping fees, expanding partnerships with local government and non-profit groups, and seeking additional creative ways to support our system in the future.

As I work with my partners in the Legislature to find solutions to these problems, know I will keep your thoughts in mind. Working together, I believe we can weather this storm and start the slow but steady march back toward prosperity.

Sincerely,


Arnold Schwarzenegger

====
and my response
====Dear Gov. Schwarzenegger,

Thank you for the prompt reply.

I appreciate the situation we are currently in and am all for making smart decisions when it comes to cutting our states spending. I voted for you twice because I felt you had what it took to take care of CA's fiscal problems. I still think you can do it. I just hope it's done well and not in a knee jerk manner.

I'm not sure I agree on the decision to shut the state parks. Based on my limited research, mainly from a UC Berkley study, it appears that the state parks are actually revenue generating. On the order of 2.35 to 1. So by closing the parks we are eliminating a significant source of revenue, not to mention impacting small business and communities that surround the parks.

Maybe you have looked into this and just don't see another way out. However, it seems to me that making decisions on which parks to close based on their revenue impact instead of blanket closures. As we often see in business, follow the 80/20 rule, not the 20/80 rule. Get rid of the 20% of fat and firm up the remaining 80%.