California State Parks Budget Crisis Threatens Mountain Bike Access/Park Closures

[Shannon]

Done. Can Stella and Gunther sign too? They enjoy the park...

[Cableguy]

signed

[Saosin]

Signed

[El Gringo]

inked

[number7s]

john hancocked

[ChariotsOfTires]

Duty has been done!

[ocrider]

sighned

[Rob]

Done!

[drclark]

Originally Posted by BrewMaster

Signed.

Realistically, we shouldn't be spending money we don't have, so if state revenues decrease, we have to cut somewhere. Every program has a good argument on why it shouldn't be cut, but something's gotta give. Pick your favorites, be they education, public safety, roads, state parks, health care, et al, something is going to lose and someone is going to be pissed.

Actually Total State Revenue for fy08-09 is UP $ 3.7 BN over last year. (approx 3%)

A nice summary is here
http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/pdf/Budget...maryCharts.pdf

Full budget available online here:
http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/home.htm

However of the $129.8 BN the state expects to take in only $102.9 BN is available for the general fund. The other $26.8 BN are "special funds" that have pre-designated spending (regardless if it is actually needed or not). A good example of this is the $3.5 BN highway users tax that is pre-designated for construction and maintenance of roads. This would seem like a good idea but considering we just passed a huge set of highway bond measures last year, it would be nice to be able to dip into that fund every now and then if needed.

Even after you take out the "special funds" there is still about $1.7 BN more going to the the general fund in fy08-09 than the previous year. Granted, thats not much and probably doesn't cover inflation, but what happened? Well, in fy07-08 the legislature carried over a surplus of $3.9 BN from fy06-07 compared to the projected carryover of $1.7BN from fy07-08 into fy08-09! (thank you arsonists )

The net result is that fy08-09 general fund only starts off about $0.5BN less than last year. They then take out an additional 3.6 BN as reserve for fy08-09 (if unused gets carried over to fy09-10). So the general fund is now starting -$4.1BN compared to last year.

Now on top of all that the overall "desired" spending increases from the general fund over last year total 6.6BN. Now the general fund is -$10.7 BN behind "desired spending levels" compared to last year (actually only about -$9BN since the $1.7BN that is projected as carryover is still being held as reserve for this year -- if a major disaster were to happen between now and the start of fy08 we would approach the $10.7 BN number)

Hence the drastic cuts in "desired spending increases" are necessary to balance the general fund budget! And This is where it is important to remember that there are $26.8B of "special fund" tax dollars still sitting out there that cannot be touched! And on top of that $$ from previously approved bond measures floating around as well. (speaking of bonds the current fy08 budget includes $4.25bn in pre-obligated bond payments as well that come out of the general fund).

So whats the point of this rant? Somehow we have a budget system than can take a $3.7 BN increase in total state revenue and turn it into a $9-10 BN shortfall requiring drastic cuts across the board and scaring the public into demanding tax increases by threatening to close our state parks and lets a bunch of felons out of prison early, etc.

The first thing that I see is broken is the carryover of unspent reserve into the next fiscal year. I am sure this year's fires are hurting us since the state $$ required to fight them reduced the expected carryover into this comming year. If you are counting on carrying over the current year's reserve to make the next year close, it really isn't a reserve. Any reserve left over at the end of a fiscal year should be refunded to the tax payers (after all its our money to begin with) or be required to be used to pay down our bond debt. Same goes for unexpected tax revenue "windfalls". Last year the legislators were arguing over how to best spend the "extra" $9-10 BN they took in instead of returning it or paying down debt. Each year should start at zero and be based on the revenue taken in for that year.

Second thing is this concept of limited special funds. These come about largely as a result of the special ballot propositions that are on the ballot from time to time. Generally the intentions are good and usually are a response by the public to frustrations that the legislature is not spending the public $$ in a manner that suits them. Problem is most people don't read the entire text of the ballot measures or understand their impact on the state budget beyond what they see in the election ads. So we have $26 BN in tax dollars tied up in special funds. Some of it is redundant with funding sources already in the general fund and some of it even goes unspent. Setting tax rates and allocation of spending is THE PRIMARY JOB we elect the assembly members and state senators for. The reason why we pay them to do this job is that most of us are too busy trying to earn a living for ourselves to pay close enough attention to what is going on in Sacramento to do it correctly ourselves. If the electorate is unsatisfied with the job they are doing we need to vote the bums out (at this point doesn't matter if they are dem, repub, or smurf) rather than taking budget matters "into our own hands". When Arnold first took office, he fixed the budget by passing $15BN worth of bonds. This allowed him to say he fixed the budget without rasing taxes. Instead of forcing the legislature to either raise taxes or reduce spending, we let them off the hook and here we are again. About the only ballot proposition I would support at this point is a measure that would base our elected officials salaries/bonus on whether or not they can pass a budget without raising taxes (and fees as well).

We need to stop passing bond measures. I am impressed with how well the general public resists new taxes, but I have yet to see a bond measure Californians didn't like. Bonds are essentially the state's credit cards; the payments plus interest comes out of the state's general fund. The more bond debt we carry, the less of each year's revenues we have to conduct the business of the state for that year. I'm not totally opposed to bonds, but they should be used judiciously for things like building roads, and water infrastructure and not things like stem-cell research.

Lastly the state education system is a mess. Prop 98 forces the state to spend a fixed percent of the general fund every year on education. (again the electorate taking things into their own hands). K-12 and higher education are mandated to be about 40% of the available general fund regardless of whether or not the money being spent is being effective or not. California public schools are consistently poor performers despite all the money being spent there. The system needs to be reformed and be held accountable. I live in city of LA currently so if/when I have kids I'll be paying for them to go to private school while my tax $$ are wasted in the public system.

So getting back to the topic at hand, rather than just signing a petition that says "closing the state parks is unacceptable", take a look at the budget in depth and offer them suggestions on where the spending should be cut. I mean $129BN in state revenue is ALOT of money.

Lastly, if the state parks are closed would that mean the rangers that would be patrolling for trail poachers would be laid-off as well

Sorry for the rant
drc

[Drum n MTB]

Done!

[Pain Freak]

It might help. IMBA is spearheading a mass emailing with our concern in shutting down some state parks.Here's a link to sign if you'd like to support this effort.

https://secure2.convio.net/imba/site...rAction&id=189

To tell the truth I believe that this is just a ploy to raise fees. The reality is the state makes money off these parks, so by shutting them down it'll cost the state money. On the other hand if they tell us they'll be able to keep the parks open, but raise the user fees, people will go along with it, because they are not closing them.

Even if they close the parks, they still keep the same amount of personel and they still pay them the same weather they're sitting behind a desk or maintaining campgrounds.

Our government is very sneaky.

[genusmtbkr5]

MOD EDIT: Merged thread

I also signed.

[CalEpic]

I know a very high ranking state parks official. This whole thing is just a ploy to force either a tax increase or higher user fees at the parks.

DrClark makes some very good points. Especially about bond measures. I can't remember the last time I ever voted yes for one.

[Upsidedown1]

Also signed.

[Wrecker]

Done

[Pugz]

Signed, thanks for the information.

[kentonn]

Originally Posted by CalEpic

DrClark makes some very good points. Especially about bond measures. I can't remember the last time I ever voted yes for one.

I am with you on that...

By the way... The MTBing in Henry Coe SP really sucks... Great place for hiking though.

[dirtvert]

signed- thanks...

[xhuskr]

check