Potential State Park Closures

[mikemill]

Is there a motion yet to impeach Schwarzenegger & Co.?

Just because you don't like what an official is doing doesn't make it a crime or impeachable offense. Such talk really only weakens the cause.

We won't be losing a dive site, you'll just need a boat to dive there.

Even if they lock the gates, it'd be pretty tough to enforce the no diving rule if you're on a boat.

I'm worried that some fisherman will use the closure as an opportunity to bag some big fish from the reserve, knowing nobody will be there to snitch on them.

.

IMO that would be something to tell our rep. Let them know that closing the park would greatly endanger the marine sanctuary.

About 80% of the ocean area of Pt. Lobos State Reserve is closed
to recreational diving. However, it is not a research area per se.

Ah ok. For some reason I thought that at least part of the closed area was dedicated to research (or at least open to research)

 

[bbianchi]

Either way, we impeached our last governor because he wanted to raise vehicle reg fees. Arnold has not already done this, but he is also closing state parks, and getting rid of police and fire... there are many other useless things he could cut, but instead he wants to cut the things that hurts most. Welcome to the 'Golden' state of Taxiforniaco.

 

[MrSpock]

That's exactly my point. Isn't he still commuting from SoCal on a jet, paid by our taxes?

 

[mikemill]

Either way, we impeached our last governor because he wanted to raise vehicle reg fees. Arnold has not already done this, but he is also closing state parks, and getting rid of police and fire... there are many other useless things he could cut, but instead he wants to cut the things that hurts most. Welcome to the 'Golden' state of Taxiforniaco.

*sigh* No we did not impeach Davis. We recalled him. Two very different processes for very different reasons.

And yes there have been attempts since the first year of Arnold's office to recall him.

 

[deeper thoughts]

I hope for you divers this is the old bait and switch that politicians do. They threaten to close libraries,police fire, parks etc to get us worried. Then they close 5 or 6 parks to make us think they "saved" the day instead of 20+

 

[zf2nt]

How does shutting down Lobos or any park for the matter save on the budget? Are we talking about pulling away the jobs from the Rangers to save money?

You need to go up a few thousand feet and take a bird's eye view to see what is going on here. Economics has very little to do with the move on the state parks; symbolism has everything to do with it.

Relative to the other 49 states, California is an extremely liberal state. And I use the word "liberal" in the classic economic sense that the populace generally accepts a responsibility to take care of those it deems "less fortunate" and is willing to pay the bill for all of that welfare. California's fiscal situation is now so dire that it absolutely cannot continue the level of public assistance currently provided without massive tax increases. If you accept the position that massive tax increases are not going to happen, then the only alternative is some fairly drastic cuts in the public assistance programs. And that is anathema to the liberal state legislature. The only way Arnold can get that through is by first showing he has curtailed as much general fund spending as possible on non-essential things, particularly things enjoyed by people who are not "less fortunate". So even if it has negative consequences for the state economy, which I believe it will, Arnold will still press ahead to cut general fund spending for state parks just for its symbolism to the liberal legislature.

If this were just about economics, don't you think we would be talking about CAL-OSHA, the high-speed train project, the agricultural inspection stations, or any of another myriad set of state expenses whose loss would affect virtually nobody but the people dependent on them for income?

Just my opinion...

Bruce

 

[ryssyr]

this states budget crisis is perpetual due to voter mandated spending. The real solution would be to hit reset on all of it and start fresh. Its too easy for folks to vote yes to things that sound like good ideas, but in the complexity of a budget process cant be removed or modified. This is just the beginning folks. There is going to be more weird cuts to come since 80% of the state budget is pretty much spoken for out of the gate.

 

[Drewpy]

I agree with you Bruce...

I read a recent article that factored in not just the park revenue and fees but the amount generated in the surrounding areas in revenue/tourism and sales tax amongst other things! A lose/lose all around?
These parks belong to the people of California..Im pissed at this ridiculous proposal!

Anyone see the Chron's article about the crazy retirement packages SF city officials are pulling in? NUTS!!!!:shocked2:
A cty manager in a small industrial city down south in LA-$486,000 yr? Lets cut the fat elsewhere?

Drew

 

[blewgrass]

I'm not sure how effective it will be, but there are petitions flying around the North Coast here. We need to hit this hard. The beaches and coastlines are some of the most wonderful resources this State has to offer. Imagine the law enforcement resources that will have to go into patrolling these areas for trespassing... will these areas no longer be patrolled by park rangers but now put additional pressure on other law enforcement agencies?

I wonder if the State has really thought this thing through...or if this is a tactic to manipulate the budget crisis. Ultimatley the people will have the last word if enough outcry is heard.

I've signed paper and electronic versions of the petitions. Let's move hard and fast on this!!

 

[MrSpock]

I signed it myself and forwarded it to many of my friends.