Fee hikes not a factor in proposed California state park cuts
You probably read the Los Angeles Times story about how shocked Will Rogers’ descendants were to hear about the possible closure of the Pacific Palisades state historic park named for the cowboy humorist as a means of balancing the governor’s proposed $141-billion spending budget for 2008-09.
Some readers of this blog reacted that way too. The thought of shutting 46 state parks and partially closing two others prompted a few readers to offer to pay fees to keep their parks open.
So we spoke with Ruth Coleman, director of California State Parks (pictured), and asked that very question.
“We can’t ‘fee’ our way out of a $13-million cut,” she said, noting that her agency did not seek fee hikes in making its budget-cutting proposal to close Central Coast faves such as Montaña de Oro and San Simeon state parks and Will Rogers and Topanga State Park in Southern California.
(Click here for a map of proposed closures. Note: Depending on your browser and screen resolution, you may need to zoom in or click again to read the map.)
Coleman says that it already costs $10 to park at an urban beach and can cost up to $50 a night to camp — fees that, if increased, could put the state park experience out of reach for many.
The agency targeted parks with the fewest visitors, that generated the least amount of funds and that were able to easily be closed off (some have multiple entrances where access can’t be closed). Coleman anticipates placing closed parks in “caretaker” status, meaning gates would be locked and personnel would patrol the areas to keep out vandals — but no maintenance would be done. (The agency currently has deferred about $1.2 billion in needed maintenance.)
Clarification on two parks slated for partial closure: Mount San Jacinto State Park would close one campsite; the area served by the Palm Springs Aerial Tramway would remain open. Only a new portion of Del Norte Coast Redwoods State Park up near the Oregon border would close; the rest of the park would remain open.
— Mary Forgione, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
[Photo: California State Parks]
7 Comments on “Fee hikes not a factor in proposed California state park cuts”
Leave a Comment
If you are under 13 years of age you may read this blog, but you may not participate. Here's the full legal spiel.
Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this blog until the author has approved them.
All fields are required
Advertisement
SUBSCRIBE TO THIS BLOG
Click the logo below to subscribe to news from this blog:
Or add this feed to your favorite RSS reader:
more
Or add this feed to your favorite RSS reader:
more
Advertisement
January 15th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
When it comes to proposed cuts - it’s never the administrators sitting in offices in Sacramento - just the services taxpayers use.
January 15th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
If Ruth Coleman had any integrity, she would resign. First Schwarzenegger forbade expansion of the state park system, and now he’s starting to close it down. Let’s face it . . . closing parks is every Republican’s wet dream come true. And with weak Democrats like the ones in Sacramento, who will only fight for their own reelection, Schwarzenegger will probably get away with it.
January 15th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
If they close Will Rogers I am moving out of LA - this is the only decent park on the Westside
January 17th, 2008 at 8:12 am
Let’s start by cutting off welfare to illegal aliens.
New statistics from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services show that those in this country, and the county, illegally collected more than $37 million in welfare and food stamp allocations in November, up $3 million from September, said county Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich.
Illegals collected more than $20 million in welfare assistance in November and more than $16 million in food stamp allocations, for a projected annual cost of $444 million.
Antonovich called the figures “an alarming increase in the devastating impact illegal immigration continues to have on Los Angeles County taxpayers.”
January 17th, 2008 at 9:51 am
adoptive - why don’t you try blaming some of the people who have power to change the situation instead of pretending that brutalizing thousands of people is a good way to save money?
brady - have you noticed that services x 38 million people might COST a bit more than a few thousand bureaucrats? do you think that might have something to do with the choices of cuts?
January 17th, 2008 at 10:10 am
if u want to get rid of the illegals, take away the reason they come here, JOBS stupid!! since it is also illegal to hire an illegal punish a few EMPLOYERS who hire them with stiff penaltys so as to discourage them from hiring the illegal and………….they wont come here. soooooo simple. why cant anyone else think of this solution. and if u want to snivel and whine about welfare, corporate welfare is a MUCH bigger pie, and these corps dont even need our tax dollars ,they just help fatten those ceo salarys and bonuses, now theres something to whine about!
January 19th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
i live on the central coast of california and 7 of the 48 parks are in my area. we live in a beautiful place and one of the only things we have to do is go to the beach or go on a hike. with the closures of these parks our youth will not be able to learn about nature as i have and will have less places to play. and of coarse for some reason they want to close our beautiful parks instead of closing our very dangerous oceano dunes vehical recreation park, which as of 2008 one woman has already died. i speak for the rest of my community that this will not happen if we have to have everyone in the county to sign a petetion to save one park we will do it. i dont know what the people of california were thinking when we elected some one who obviously can’t budget our state into office.