Report on CA state parks

[daveb]

It was a small park (20 sites) Herb but he did claim that it included his and the 2 staff maintenance workers pay. What he did complain about was all the state people that would come down to inspect the park to make sure their goals were being applied. I guess there are all sorts of so called experts that check every aspect of the park and the way he was talking about these folks, they are high paid employees. Check the water, check the animals, check the trees and plants, check the facilities...etc. He told me all this when they asked me to check the power lines

[BajaSportsmobile]

Cheaters:
http://www.sacbee.com/2013/02/15/519...ad-hidden.html

[chromisdesigns]

Originally Posted by pinz712

One Problem is that they charge Southern California too much while most of northern California is free.

Where are these free parks in northern California? We sure haven't found any of them!

[rob_gendreau]

Originally Posted by pinz712

One Problem is that they charge Southern California too much while most of northern California is free.

Huh? I wish. Some SoCal beachfront sites are at the top of the scale, but it's about $35 average at most drive-in sites throughout the state. And even $25 at places without flush toilets.

[rob_gendreau]

Originally Posted by BroncoHauler

The State Park fund probably went the way of the CA Green Sticker fund (required by CA law to only go toward off-road facilities so that they were self-sufficient) which was diverted to the state general fund totally ignoring the state law.

I assume you're talking about the Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Trust Fund, and that fund included more than just the green sticker fees. And it's still there; they diverted some of it (not all of it) to general fund use and said it should help keep parks open, etc. Many of us still feel the diversion that did occur was illegal. And some of the money that was in the fund was used in what many of us consider rather anti-OHV activities (and I don't mean enforcement per se; that's a valid use). The state has a web page with listings of some of the grants. For example I was just in Inyo Co and money went for signage and some restoration work done by the USFS and others.

One of the points of the Little Hoover report is that the state needs to involve users and park advocacy groups and locals more in their planning and operating. Getting OHVers to pay $$ to improve the parks they use was a good example of that, only to be subverted by either avaricious politicians, anti-OHV advocates, or over-zealous law enforcement. I don't see many hikers willing to pay fees for the costs of their recreation. But it's common with hunters, fishers & offroaders. Similarly, local groups seem to be willing to pony up money for "their" parks, but are unwilling (and who wouldn't be?) to let it go to the state for general use, even general park use. Thus decentralization is a goal of the report.

And true, some parks can never generate revenue at any significant amount. But we knew that when we created them.