By Elizabeth Patterson
To paraphrase Oscar Wilde, there are some state legislators who, along with the governor, know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Duncan McDuffie, an early 20th century developer in San Francisco and Berkeley, once said: “Next to our fertile soil, California’s greatest single asset is the opportunity it offers for outdoor life. It would seem to be sound business for the state to see that its major opportunities for recreation and enjoyment of the out-of-doors are left open for the use and enjoyment of both its citizens and its visitors.”
California’s magnificent state parks — from the sublime to the spectacular — are facing the most severe budget cutbacks in state history. Having governed his way along with the Legislature to a $24.3 billion deficit, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has set forth a shortsighted proposal to eliminate all funding for state parks. Only parks that make money, such as off-road vehicle parks, will remain open.
This means that about 80 percent of the parks will be shut down, starting as early as September. To put this in perspective, the public will soon be losing access to about 1.3 million acres of parkland — a vast expanse larger in area than all Native American-owned forest in the United States, the Grand Canyon and the entire state of Delaware.
Californians have fewer acres of state park system land available to them per capita today than at anytime since 1930. Today we are coping with the most severe economic recession since that time, but even in those Depression days, parks were maintained and expanded. One compelling reason why parks were kept open was because most people in the cities and towns did not have the means to access large rural open spaces; they depended on urban and regional parks, small and large.
Parks are important to our quality of life. Proximity to parks is one of the most important factors people consider when locating or purchasing a home or business, because parks increase property values while providing recreation and restorative benefits.
The governor and legislators clearly believe that eliminating park system funding makes economic sense. Let’s ask them to think again:
First, think about the effects of park closure on our downtown businesses. The Benicia State Capitol building contributes about $230,000 per year in economic activity in the city. And think about the effect of closure on our property values.
Second, California’s General Fund budget for parks amounts to less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the state budget. Our state parks serve as an enormous economic engine, attracting 80 million visitors a year and generating revenues of $2.1 billion in direct expenditures and $4 billion more in indirect spending. In exchange for comparatively small savings, the state would lose these tremendous sources of revenue, as well as thousands of jobs statewide.
A survey commissioned and funded by the California Parks and Recreation Department found that park visitors spend an average of $57.63 per visit, including $24.63 inside state parks and nearby communities, and $33 in communities more than 25 miles from the park being visited.
So what’s the alternative to zeroing out the California state park system?
As the Sacramento Bee reported this week, some have suggested raising fees. But the parks have done that four times in this decade, and attendance has declined. Others have suggested that state parks should use volunteers. But the parks already have 17,000 volunteers — and only 3,000 paid staff.
The parks have also partnered with the private sector to provide services and have raised millions from private sources to supplement public dollars. But none of this can fully replace the $140 million from the General Fund.
The California State Parks Foundation supports a proposal by former Assemblyman John Laird of Santa Cruz to increase the vehicle license fee by $15. In return, any car with California license plates would get free entrance to all state parks. This fee revenue would be more than enough to cover the $143 million in the General Fund, plus begin the backlog of maintenance and repair (about $1 billion). It may be enough to begin to reach the same level of park land per capita that we had in the 1930s.
It takes a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to pass this fee increase equal to one movie and popcorn once a year, so don’t hold your breath. But urge your friends who live in Republican districts to write their representatives to support this fee. See these Web sites for district maps and names:
• http://www.sen.ca.gov/ftp/SEN/senplan/senate.htp
• http://www.assembly.ca.gov/defaulttext.asp
California should not be so entirely void of vision that its state parks become playgrounds only for those who can pay large fees — or closed off entirely to the public. As the Sacramento Bee editorial said, “The Schwarzenegger administration seems to believe that you can simply shut the gates and reopen them ‘when the budget improves.’ They’re in la-la land. Closed parks will go feral — expect graffiti, fires, illegal camping, dumping and crime.”
There are only two state parks in Solano County. They are both here in Benicia: one small historic site downtown and one small coastal park between Benicia and Vallejo. Closing these parks is not an option.
Today, June 21, a Save Our Solano Parks Day of Action — a march/bike ride and rally — will be held to oppose the proposed closure of the Benicia State Recreation Area and the Benicia State Capitol Historic Park. The rally gets under way in the Benicia SRA at 9:30 a.m. (see front-page story for details on the issue).
The Day of Action is being conducted in conjunction with similar actions in state parks across California. The California State Parks Foundation, the Benicia State Parks Association and the California Native Plant Society Willis Linn Jepson Chapter are leading the efforts in Benicia. The city of Benicia will provide a city bus to take people who need a ride from the State Recreation Area to the State Capitol in downtown Benicia. Join us.
Elizabeth Patterson is mayor of Benicia.
