Comments on: How to Keep State Parks Open in California http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2008/02/how-to-keep-sta.html Dispatches from a Small Business Sun, 21 Mar 2010 21:41:05 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Jeff Marshall http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2008/02/how-to-keep-sta.html/comment-page-1#comment-9480 Jeff Marshall Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:29:00 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2008/02/how-to-keep-sta.html #comment-9480 <p>Thank you for posting this. I read about this in the paper and think it is terrible. We shouldn't be closing parks, we should be opening up more.</p> <p>Best,<br /> Jeff Marshall<br /> <a href="http://www.goingtentcamping.com" rel="nofollow">Camping Tips</a></p> Thank you for posting this. I read about this in the paper and think it is terrible. We shouldn’t be closing parks, we should be opening up more.

Best,
Jeff Marshall
Camping Tips

]]> By: dale http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2008/02/how-to-keep-sta.html/comment-page-1#comment-9479 dale Mon, 14 Apr 2008 19:37:42 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2008/02/how-to-keep-sta.html #comment-9479 <p>Great information !</p> Great information !

]]> By: SuperMike http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2008/02/how-to-keep-sta.html/comment-page-1#comment-9478 SuperMike Mon, 04 Feb 2008 19:13:00 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2008/02/how-to-keep-sta.html #comment-9478 <p>I think he's playing budgetary "chicken". As sensible as your proposal is, the commenter above is right; there's no way the bureaucrats are going to give up control of those parks. They'd obviously rather close them down than charge enough that they pay for themselves. Also, there's a certain vocal minority that would go nuts at the thought of "our parks" being run for a ... gasp ... profit.</p> <p>Even as they are, I'm still not sure why these need to be shut down. As a long-time park and beach-goer, I don't need most of the stuff the state does at those parks. I guess they need law enforcement (which the sheriff's probably obligated to provide) and garbage pickup. Other than that, most of the other stuff is either unnecessary or would do fine for a year or so with benign neglect.</p> I think he’s playing budgetary “chicken”. As sensible as your proposal is, the commenter above is right; there’s no way the bureaucrats are going to give up control of those parks. They’d obviously rather close them down than charge enough that they pay for themselves. Also, there’s a certain vocal minority that would go nuts at the thought of “our parks” being run for a … gasp … profit.

Even as they are, I’m still not sure why these need to be shut down. As a long-time park and beach-goer, I don’t need most of the stuff the state does at those parks. I guess they need law enforcement (which the sheriff’s probably obligated to provide) and garbage pickup. Other than that, most of the other stuff is either unnecessary or would do fine for a year or so with benign neglect.

]]> By: happyjuggler0 http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2008/02/how-to-keep-sta.html/comment-page-1#comment-9477 happyjuggler0 Sat, 02 Feb 2008 08:56:52 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2008/02/how-to-keep-sta.html #comment-9477 <p>Oh yeah, I knew I would forget something in my previous post. Property taxes. I've probably overlooked something else too....</p> Oh yeah, I knew I would forget something in my previous post. Property taxes. I’ve probably overlooked something else too….

]]> By: happyjuggler0 http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2008/02/how-to-keep-sta.html/comment-page-1#comment-9476 happyjuggler0 Sat, 02 Feb 2008 08:46:37 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2008/02/how-to-keep-sta.html #comment-9476 <p>I realize that CA doesn't really want to solve this "problem", but it seems to me there is another even better solution to the one you outlined in your letter to the Governator.</p> <p>Privatize the parks, and regulate them like they would utilities if they must. For example, rule number one would be: absolutely under no circumstances can this land be used for anything other than recreational activity for the general public, prohibiting things like housing development etc.</p> <p>So in this scenario they make a profit up front, and then they rake in corporate income taxes each and every year (not to mention payroll and income and sales taxes). As opposed to it being a budget expenditure, i.e. a net loss to honest citizen taxpayers.</p> I realize that CA doesn’t really want to solve this “problem”, but it seems to me there is another even better solution to the one you outlined in your letter to the Governator.

Privatize the parks, and regulate them like they would utilities if they must. For example, rule number one would be: absolutely under no circumstances can this land be used for anything other than recreational activity for the general public, prohibiting things like housing development etc.

So in this scenario they make a profit up front, and then they rake in corporate income taxes each and every year (not to mention payroll and income and sales taxes). As opposed to it being a budget expenditure, i.e. a net loss to honest citizen taxpayers.

]]> By: Jon Nichols http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2008/02/how-to-keep-sta.html/comment-page-1#comment-9475 Jon Nichols Sat, 02 Feb 2008 07:50:58 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2008/02/how-to-keep-sta.html #comment-9475 <p>I'm a resident of CA, and as an avid surfer, I also visit a lot of state parks along the coast of California. I would love for Coyote to take over these parks, and I guarantee you could do a much better job at managing them. A great example... from about March - October, it is virtually impossible to get a weekend campsite on many of the parks. But don't suggest raising prices, or you'll get your head cut off. Furthermore, despite the fact that many of the parks are ghost towns during the week (and extremely busy on the weekends), there is no difference in price.</p> <p>I wish I could attribute all of the problems to the politicians, but as usual, it's just another case of the people getting exactly what they want. Activist groups are dead set against privatizing anything... they absolutely would rather they close. I'm not holding my breath, but please continue to push to take on these parks.</p> I’m a resident of CA, and as an avid surfer, I also visit a lot of state parks along the coast of California. I would love for Coyote to take over these parks, and I guarantee you could do a much better job at managing them. A great example… from about March – October, it is virtually impossible to get a weekend campsite on many of the parks. But don’t suggest raising prices, or you’ll get your head cut off. Furthermore, despite the fact that many of the parks are ghost towns during the week (and extremely busy on the weekends), there is no difference in price.

I wish I could attribute all of the problems to the politicians, but as usual, it’s just another case of the people getting exactly what they want. Activist groups are dead set against privatizing anything… they absolutely would rather they close. I’m not holding my breath, but please continue to push to take on these parks.

]]> By: ElamBend http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2008/02/how-to-keep-sta.html/comment-page-1#comment-9474 ElamBend Sat, 02 Feb 2008 02:35:35 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2008/02/how-to-keep-sta.html #comment-9474 <p>California is an ungovernable mess verging on the level of Italy</p> California is an ungovernable mess verging on the level of Italy

]]> By: bbeeman http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2008/02/how-to-keep-sta.html/comment-page-1#comment-9473 bbeeman Sat, 02 Feb 2008 01:45:35 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2008/02/how-to-keep-sta.html #comment-9473 <p>I suspect it's just bureaucratic habit at work...the whole California establishment went into this "cut whatever is visible and useful to the taxpayer" mode after Prop. 13, and it's worked well enough that they keep it up.</p> <p>No bureaucrat could even consider your suggestion, because it would raise the question of how much of the existing grossly inefficient bureaucracy could be farmed out at a profit.</p> <p>At lease the functionary that generated the form response to you picked the general subject correctly. The last time I wrote the governor's office the form letter that came back was on a wholly different subject. I guess that's were they put the incompetent instead of replacing them.</p> I suspect it’s just bureaucratic habit at work…the whole California establishment went into this “cut whatever is visible and useful to the taxpayer” mode after Prop. 13, and it’s worked well enough that they keep it up.

No bureaucrat could even consider your suggestion, because it would raise the question of how much of the existing grossly inefficient bureaucracy could be farmed out at a profit.

At lease the functionary that generated the form response to you picked the general subject correctly. The last time I wrote the governor’s office the form letter that came back was on a wholly different subject. I guess that’s were they put the incompetent instead of replacing them.

]]> By: Jimk http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2008/02/how-to-keep-sta.html/comment-page-1#comment-9472 Jimk Sat, 02 Feb 2008 00:36:55 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2008/02/how-to-keep-sta.html #comment-9472 <p>As is typical in these situations, the state of California is not actually interested in solving the problem of the state park funding. They are only interested in using high visibility state services (parks, fire, police) as a hammer to advance other budgetary priorities. You never hear them talk about cutting, oh I don't know, state employee benefits in CA. Since Arnold has been trying to cut CA spending (god bless him but he is unlikely to succeed), he is going to use parks to drive home his hoped for state spending reform. Given California's very liberal legislature, he is unlikely to succeed and the next step will be a tax increase, probably through adding a new surtax on high income earners, or possibly repealing some of the limitations on property taxes instituted with proposition 13 in the late 70's</p> As is typical in these situations, the state of California is not actually interested in solving the problem of the state park funding. They are only interested in using high visibility state services (parks, fire, police) as a hammer to advance other budgetary priorities. You never hear them talk about cutting, oh I don’t know, state employee benefits in CA. Since Arnold has been trying to cut CA spending (god bless him but he is unlikely to succeed), he is going to use parks to drive home his hoped for state spending reform. Given California’s very liberal legislature, he is unlikely to succeed and the next step will be a tax increase, probably through adding a new surtax on high income earners, or possibly repealing some of the limitations on property taxes instituted with proposition 13 in the late 70’s

]]> By: Sol http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2008/02/how-to-keep-sta.html/comment-page-1#comment-9471 Sol Fri, 01 Feb 2008 23:16:23 +0000 http://coyote-blog.com/wordpress/2008/02/how-to-keep-sta.html #comment-9471 <p>So you sent them a letter explaining that the parks did not need to be closed, but could be turned into revenue producing operations instead, and they sent you back a form letter saying there wasn't enough money to keep the parks open? Nice.</p> So you sent them a letter explaining that the parks did not need to be closed, but could be turned into revenue producing operations instead, and they sent you back a form letter saying there wasn’t enough money to keep the parks open? Nice.

]]>