[The following is a minimally revised reprint of a Facebook "note" I wrote the other day]
A pic I took in March of the pier at Hearst San Simeon SP by Cambria, CA, one of the sites the Governator proposes to close.
Due to the indiscretions of state and nation and business and individual, we are in a huge economic slump. News flash, right? :-0 The state of California, estimated by many to be the world's 10th largest economy, has been hit hard and out of necessity, is looking for ways to cut corners in its state budget. This is right and understandable. One of Gov. Schwarzenegger's proposals for this trimming is to indefinitely close 220 out of 279 state-run parks across CA. (Which equals roughly 80% of them) As I consider this proposal, I am increasingly becoming irate and am befuddled as to why this would be a wise thing to do, after considering the likely cost-benefit analysis of such a move.
Let's switch the order of those two terms of that foundational economic principle for a minute:
The BENEFIT:
If this proposal goes through and 220 state-run parks are closed (= no legal access, no rangers, no security, no trash collection, no first aid, no educational programs, no maintenance, no income generated...), the state of CA will have skimmed off a whopping 0.01% of its budget deficit. Yes, that's right, a whole 1%.
The COST:
Political cost: First of all, there is the unjust political concept that the public will be denied access to public lands, which just goes against logic, considering we live in a democracy.
Cost for the sites themselves: the potential increased vandalism, fires, injuries, poaching, etc. that could happen in these places w/out supervision. During my internship up at the Great Smoky Mountains NP a few summers ago, I was constantly amazed at how foolish people can act out "in the wild," from leaving trash around to getting too close to bears. Most "city folk" don't know naturally how to respect the wilderness, and the same could be said for respecting our cultural sites from painted Indian caves to historic buildings. The solution is to show people how to safely enjoy the wilderness, but you can't do that without rangers.
Cost for the residents and tourists who enjoy these sites: remove educational programs which connect people to the land and their history; take away camping opportunities which make for great, healthy, fun, family- and friend-building, and cheap(!) vacations in our tough economy and it's like, "Schwartz--what are you thinking?!" Many popular surfing beaches will be closed, meaning no place to park, no camping, no restroom facilities or trash collection, and NO LIFEGUARDS.
Cost for the local economies: consider the damage to the local, oftentimes rural economies around state parks which rely on tourist dollars and then add the fact that closing all of these state parks will include "laying off" approx. 1,500 employees, increasing our state's unemployment level, further reducing business income in small communities.
Cost for the State's economy: A UC Berkley study concluded that for every $1 CA spends on its state parks, the state receives $2.35 in taxes and local business revenue. Again, using a basic cost/benefit analysis, it makes economic sense to keep these parks open.
And then there is the "priceless" factor that no one can easily quantify. You can't place a $ value amount on the experience of standing below a towering Redwood tree up in the Henry Cowell Redwoods in Santa Cruz. You can't reproduce the silence and the night sky you find in the Anza-Borrego Desert, east of San Diego, back in the city. Who would think of closing Ellis Island, and yet we are proposing to close Angel Island up in the San Francisco Bay, which was the Ellis Island of the West. No more access to fields of endless golden poppies (our state flower) out in Lancaster; no visits to Bodie, one of the best-preserved ghost towns anywhere; no more camping trips to Carpenteria; no hikes up at Malibu Creek or even the Verdugo Mtns, just a shot above Burbank and Glendale; and no safe surfing seshes down at C-Bad or Refugio.
To summarize: I'm afraid for the integrity of these sites w/out any security, and I'm pissed I may not have legal access to them! :-0 Remove all of these awesome opportunities and you begin to ask yourself, "Wait, why do I live in California again?"
****
Data Sources:
CA State Parks Foundation: http://ga3.org/campaign/bu
(You can take action here by signing a letter which will be sent to the Governor and your appropriate state representatives. And believe it or not, this matters! A similar, but much smaller proposal [for closing 48 parks] was brought up last year by the Governor, but was quickly shut down after an overwhelming public response through petitions, letters and the like. Let's remind Sacramento again where our priorities lie!)
Surfline.com:
http://www.surfline.com/su
Silicon Valley Mercury News: http://www.mercurynews.com
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment