Whats wrong with California State Parks

I am really itching to get back into the fun of blaming the other side, finger pointing, and just some fun political party name calling. Everyone knows their side has no fault in the issue and their side is the side that can fix it. It's the other guys that messed it all up and just won't co-operate. Just like every other thread that heads down this path, doesn't matter what the subject matter is. What a waste.

If anyone can remember when Governor Wilson left office he cut fees at the state parks in half, if I remember correctly I was camping at New Brighten State park. $12 dollars per night 8 guests per site. A bargan for the campers.

Having a conversation with the ranger about the reduction in fees. He basically said the park could not be run at that rate and he will just see what happens.

Well now we know and that was the beginning of the downfall.

Pogoil.

dave54 wrote:
Just spent a few moments checking the internet for hard numbers. Here is what I found:

California state parks system is ~1.6 million acres, with over a third of the total size from one park -- Anza Borrego Desert state park at 586,000 acres.

A few years back the state parks director was screaming for more money, threatening to close parks. State auditors examined the State Parks books and found $70 million squirreled away in secret funds and accounting gimmicks. After that the closure threats diminished.

Total current budget, from the state parks website, is $676 million. The same website states that at $243 per acre the CA state parks system ranks about the middle (24th) in cost/acre compared to all 50 states. Now, I am not an accountant nor a government budget analyst. But when I divide the budget by the acres I get $422.50 per acre. Quite a discrepancy.

This funny accounting could explain a lot about California's chronic fiscal problems.

I did not spend any time checking other state's state parks number. I invite other readers to research their own state parks and post back here with their cost per acre. Do the actual math yourself, do not use the cooked press release numbers. Divide the total parks budget by the total acres.

Then we can compare apples to apples.

Read the whole 6 pages of comments and in the back of my head I was thinking of that exact incident of the squirreled away millions. Places were left in shambles , people were laid off and some parks were closed.
Only to find out the money was there.
No money to take care of the parks, but apparently there was enough for all the shiny new vehicles they were driving around in.
Here in the Sacramento area some outfit was doing a story about the high dollar amounts park service employee's training seminars. They followed a couple vans loaded with said employees to of all places a t a local bowling alley for several hours of bowling . When confronted on it later they were told it was a team building day function!

Not going to go into exact names of State Parks we have been to in the last 10 years, but 90% from the Rangers to any person that worked in the Park System acted like and didn't care about anyone or anything because they were a guberment employee and pretty much impossible to be/get fired and they knew it.

I am perfectly willing to have this person or group donate 100+ acres and 100+ million to develop the park just as others have done.

Dave, to make it even more extreme you have to figure that Anza Borrego Desert state park is a massive piece of land with relatively little infrastructure, the cost per acre of the OTHER parks is astronomically high. I also get the $422.50 per acre cost that you do.

When you figure that Anza Borrego Desert is mostly unimproved and uninhabited by humans compared to other state parks you would see that the cost per acre per year actually used by humans is off the charts. On average, the cost to the state of Kalifornia for the park is $24.6 million PER YEAR just for Anza Borrego. That's a LOT of coin for a park with minimal infrastructure.

Just spent a few moments checking the internet for hard numbers. Here is what I found:

California state parks system is ~1.6 million acres, with over a third of the total size from one park -- Anza Borrego Desert state park at 586,000 acres.

A few years back the state parks director was screaming for more money, threatening to close parks. State auditors examined the State Parks books and found $70 million squirreled away in secret funds and accounting gimmicks. After that the closure threats diminished.

Total current budget, from the state parks website, is $676 million. The same website states that at $243 per acre the CA state parks system ranks about the middle (24th) in cost/acre compared to all 50 states. Now, I am not an accountant nor a government budget analyst. But when I divide the budget by the acres I get $422.50 per acre. Quite a discrepancy.

This funny accounting could explain a lot about California's chronic fiscal problems.

I did not spend any time checking other state's state parks number. I invite other readers to research their own state parks and post back here with their cost per acre. Do the actual math yourself, do not use the cooked press release numbers. Divide the total parks budget by the total acres.

Then we can compare apples to apples.

"These are the findings of a commission assigned to help the California Department of Parks and Recreation turn the page after years of scandal, mismanagement and stagnation."

Other than the above truth, the new commission appears to not understand just how nice our park system is. We don't need to attract a new camper with needs..........Real campers are still in abundance.

The number one problem is KALIFORNIA.

When I was growing up we didn't go to parks. We went to my backyard, my neighbors yard, an open field nearby, etc. At school we had a playground and a field to run around. I don't buy into the idea that the state government is REQUIRED to give me an urban type park simply to play in as I grow up.

The idea of a park, to me, is an attempt to preserve nature. It is an attempt to keep trees so we can breath and animals that have been here long before us. I want a state park to have hiking trails and beautiful scenery. For people like us that want to have the privilege of staying overnight, I don't mind amenities that we have to pay to use... such as bathrooms/water/electric/roads, etc.

Now... when we get into CITY parks, that is a different story. Savannah has the gorgeous squares throughout the city. Central Park is amazing. Austin has a couple beautiful parks. That is a different beast altogether.

Kalifornia shouldn't be worrying about city parks, that is the responsibility and concern of the individual cities.

Highway 4x4 wrote:
The park system in cal is so far down the list of things that need fixing and funds that it is not going to get fixed, or even changed. It is much easier for the ones in power to ignore or close them and spend the funds on issues that are more pressing in the news. If you are OK with the parks the way they are, great. If not, find other places, but don't expect them to change.

Like building a bullet train to nowhere.

Red/blue politics aside, I wonder if it comes from an attitude that comes from urban areas. I see a similar attitude from some of the 20-somethings here in Austin, where if a park doesn't have a soccer field, basketball court, softball court, a half-pipe for the skateboarders, then it isn't worth having. This issue is also compounded by the "cars are for old people" attitude I occasionally see, so those people just have no realistic method of getting anywhere outside a city core.

My idea for state parks is that they should be maintained. Even though not everyone uses them, they are a must for everyone, just like people pay for public schools and roads. The alternative (leasing the park out to private companies) won't benefit the state or the park users.

I would agree with wintersun about one thing. City parks are at best an afterthought in newer cities. Here in Austin, there are a few decent city parks with amenities (Zilker Park and Pease Park). However, they are completely inaccessible to people unless they spend money on a taxi or are lucky to own a half-million dollar house within walking distance. Newer developments have nothing in the way of parks unless one hops in the car and drives. Contrast that to Houston or San Antonio where they have incredible parks... and people can just drive in, find a parking place, do whatever without having to make it a complete day plan.