Arizona made
a colossal blunder last month, one that provides a cautionary tale for
California. As a result of
legislative raids on its funds in order to fill gaps elsewhere, the Arizona
Parks Board voted to shut down two-thirds of Arizona’s state parks. Four have already been shuttered. Thirteen more are slated for closure
between now and June. If
additional funds aren’t found by then, the remainder of the system will also be
padlocked. Sound familiar?
California’s
state parks dodged that bullet last year.
A cut to the Department of Parks and Recreation’s $140 million general
fund allocation was initially expected to lead the full closure of close to 100
state parks. The outcry was great
enough, though, that the administration ultimately indicated that the savings
could be realized through other means such as adding to a deferred maintenance backlog
already over one billion dollars, delaying the purchase of new equipment, and
reductions in park operations instead of outright closures.
At the time,
those cost-cutting measures were referred to one-time savings. The result is that this year the
Department finds itself in an even more precarious position than last. The Governor’s proposed budget eliminates
the Department’s entire general fund allocation and backfills it with proceeds
from the Tranquillon Ridge off-shore drilling deal. Regardless of what one may think of it, Tranquillon Ridge is
far from a done deal, having failed last year before both the State Lands
Commission and the legislature.
Failure again this year puts California’s state parks in the same
unenviable position as Arizona’s.
The decision would not be whether to shut down parks, but how many and
how soon.
Such a move
would be an economic disaster.
State parks generate revenue.
Visitors to California’s state parks spend $4.3 billion annually related
to those visits. These
expenditures, in turn, generate $300 million in sales tax revenue to state
government. Slightly more than 40%
of that revenue comes from out-of-state visitors. Given Arizona’s blunder, that percentage might even
increase.
Whether or
not California’s state park system is simply too big is a legitimate topic for
discussion, especially in the state’s current fiscal crisis. It doesn’t make sense, though, to
further damage an economic engine that returns $2.35 to the state for each
dollar of general fund allocation.
Parks advocates and the tourism industry recognize this and are
currently seeking signatures to place the State Parks and Wildlife Conservation
Trust Fund initiative on the November 2010 ballot. The initiative would create a trust fund dedicated to state
parks and wildlife conservation through an $18 surcharge for most vehicles
registered in California. In
exchange, vehicles subject to the surcharge would receive free year-round
access to all state parks. By way
of comparison, an annual state parks pass runs as high as $125 and day rates at
most parks run $10-$15 per vehicle.
Out of state vehicles would continue to pay full entrance fees.
Park
advocates and environmentalists will no doubt talk about the inspirational nature
of places like Anza Borrego Desert State Park, and the need to protect
California’s natural, cultural and historic resources. Underlying this, though, is an economic
reality that should drive the debate as much any other argument. State parks are economic engines. They create jobs and generate revenue
critical to the economic health of the state. Visitors to California’s state parks rent hotel rooms and
cars or stay in campgrounds. While
they’re visiting they eat in restaurants, buy sun block, gasoline and gifts for
friends and family back home, and if they enjoy their stay and enjoy the park
facilities they’ll come back.
Keeping those facilities in good shape requires maintenance. That maintenance requires lumber,
cement and other construction materials, often purchased in nearby
communities. Large maintenance
projects are bid out to private contractors, creating jobs in the private
sector. This is economic stimulus
that’s easy to understand. It’s a
shame that Arizona didn’t.
Arizona’s loss, though, may be California’s gain.