I heard there were efforts underway to keep state parks open that were slated for closure due to lack of funds. Aparrently some funds have appeared.

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/07/20/4645141/state-parks-director-resigns.html

Does anyone know what the normal operating budget for the state parks is in the first place? $54 million in surplus sounds like a lot.... but how does it compare to the total amount spent on state parks every year? No type of reference point is made as compared to the normal operating budget of the state parks and how the $54 million compares to that.

Even still, sounds a little shady....

???

Gusto

The money should be used to buy flowers, and bunny rabbits, and rainbows, and candy canes. And solar-powered electric cars.

SeanReedy wrote:I heard there were efforts underway to keep state parks open that were slated for closure due to lack of funds. Aparrently some funds have appeared.

http://www.sacbee.com/2012/07/20/4645141/state-parks-director-resigns.html

Ah California, the Sicily of America.

Considering how monolithic the partisan leadership, at what point will the state's citizens arrive at the inevitable conclusion that, at the very least, California's democrat party is utterly unfit to hold public office. Objectively, their track record is a dismal failure and the Byzantine bureaucracy is corrupt and sclerotic. Moonbeam? Seriously, is that the best we have?

MCGusto wrote:Does anyone know what the normal operating budget for the state parks is in the first place? $54 million in surplus sounds like a lot.... but how does it compare to the total amount spent on state parks every year? No type of reference point is made as compared to the normal operating budget of the state parks and how the $54 million compares to that.

Even still, sounds a little shady....

???

Gusto

The article posted seemed to be of the breaking news variety. The proposed closures weren't going to save all that much in the big scheme of things (less than the amount that people are resigning over). Apparently there is a maintenance backlog that is in the range of a billion dollars. I suspect there is much in the state parks budget that I do not value and I am glad cuts are a consideration there, as well as elsewhere in the state budget. The challenge is agreeing what to cut and what to fund. Issues like this one build skepticism that taxes will be utilized responsibly and fan the flames of growing frustration. This article below gave more details. I'd guess your specific question could be answered without too much digging.
http://www.mercurynews.com/california/ci_21121187/california-parks-director-resigns-amid-scandal

MCGusto wrote:Does anyone know what the normal operating budget for the state parks is in the first place? $54 million in surplus sounds like a lot.... but how does it compare to the total amount spent on state parks every year?

It's a drop in the bucket compared to their budget, but that doesn't matter. The state insisted on shutting down a large part of the parks system to save $22 million a year. This was entirely unnecessary - they could have kept all the parks open with reduced services - but they used it as a high-profile carrot/stick for the next round of tax increases. That 54 million would have pushed any park closures out by 2 years. If the executive branch hadn't played such an absurd game of budget chicken, they wouldn't be eating crow right now.

Sucks for anyone who put up private money to help keep their local park open.

Now that we are looking beyond state parks, we are talking billions:
http://www.mercurynews.com/california-budget/ci_21150193/state-parks-scandal-honor-system-used-keep-track

I guess the state parks fiasco may end up having some beneficial outcomes. At the same time, I won't be surprised if this issue is used to justify spending money on more accounting positions.

A lot of things that have been reported so far do not add up . I'd wait before I reached any conclusions about the matter.

We can conclude that parks have been on the chopping block for over four years now and that voters rejected a proposition specifically designed to raise additional funds for them. We can conclude that a first chosen in a recall election floated the concept of closing parks and that the following governor stood by the concept more firmly. One could investigate which representatives have worked to keep parks open, while one might also appreciate representatives who supported cuts. I'd appreciate extra attention to where money goes in tight times and expect that money be used wisely thinking both short term and long term.