OUR VIEW: Cut to parks would end up costing more
Surely, Gov. Jerry Brown doesn't want to go down in history as the California chief executive who closed the state parks. But that's where we're heading, with 70 of California's 278 parks slated to close by July, including Fort Tejon State Historic Park and Tule Elk Reserve State Park. The scheduled closures represent part of Brown's effort to convince voters that the budget crisis is legitimate. Apparently most of us are already convinced: A new poll shows more than two-thirds of California's likely voters favor his proposed ballot initiative to raise taxes as a means of stabilizing the state's finances -- they just don't like the part about raising sales tax.
Defunding the parks -- some of the 70 have located private donors or nonprofit support -- could save $22 million. That sounds like a fair sum until one considers that $22 million represents just two-tenths of 1 percent of the state's $9.2 billion budget deficit. The sad irony is that closing those parks will almost surely cost the state more than it would save.
All of those "Park Closed" signs could invite trespassing, vandalism and fire, which, without the continuous presence of rangers, would be a greater challenge to fight. Forgoing maintenance work would hasten the deterioration of buildings, trails and other assets. And communities located near parks and other state facilities would suffer from the loss of the tourism dollar -- a hit to state tax revenue.
Did Brown undertake these cuts for effect? One would think so, considering the economic downside of such a mass closure. But this crisis is real and other cuts that defy common sense have already come to pass.
Is the possibility of a mass closure of the state parks a good reason to support new temporary taxes, assuming Brown can find an acceptable formula? Sure, but it's not the best reason. The best reason is the ongoing threat to schools, public safety, the state's business climate and our fundamental quality of life.
