The Mitchell Caverns area was closed and left unattended, then the visitor center was burglarized and vandalized. I'm sure I'm not alone in feeling sick and outraged by this news.

"Shuttered California state parks may be vulnerable to vandalism"
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/25 ... s-20120225

Intruders cut fences, kicked doors off of hinges and shattered windows and display cases. They stole metal signs and survival gear, including hand-held radios, flashlights and binoculars. They also stole diesel-powered generators and ripped out thousands of feet of electrical wire used to illuminate the only natural limestone caverns in the state park system, San Bernardino County sheriff's investigators said.

The Mitchell Caverns visitors center, 220 miles east of Los Angeles, had been the home of the caverns' original owners, Los Angeles businessman Jack Mitchell and his wife, Ida. The couple moved to the desert to open the caverns as a tourist attraction in the 1930s and sold them to the state in 1954. A memorial plaque says the Mitchells wanted the state to preserve the area and the caverns "for future generations to appreciate."

Sue Ellen Patrick, 71, granddaughter of Jack and Ida Mitchell, said of the destruction: "My family feels betrayed because the state didn't do what it promised us, which is protect the caves and the heritage."

That is a travesty, on a number of levels.

Wow that is horrible. Why they think it is alright is beyond me.

The ones who ought to be, and deservedly are, truely outraged are the decendants of Jack and Ida Mitchell. They'd have a good mind to sue the state to take the property back for violating the agreement, keep their previous tax deduction for the donatation, and open it back up to the public (or not) under there own terms (whatever those may be so that it isn't a burden for them).

Just a reminder of the idiocy of those running the State of CA, that they would shut down these tax revenue generators in order to cut budget expenses. And then think they would magically be ok by just locking the door. Sounds like these folks did quite a number on it, having returned to the scene several times.

I've been to that visitor center. Nice area, though I don't remember the caverns themselves. Maybe they were closed when I went. In that case maybe the caverns were asking for it, but not the visitor center. (let's see if anyone takes that too seriously)

BAD deal, and not surprising given the area...struggling economy, remote place near high crime areas, meth heads. I've been to the Hole in the Wall area right by there a couple of times, but didn't venture into the state park (wanted to avoid fees and rules against dogs).

Many are mainly still viewing the whole park closure thing as a political game to get the public to support higher taxes, but there does seem to be some strategy in that the parks being closed are the ones that aren't really money makers. The disgusting sort of scenario above is exactly what many have been worried about, but it could help garner more support for the parks. I've heard of a few state representatives with different proposals for securing funding to keep all of the parks open (one involved renegotiating/updating lease agreements on state land and collecting unpaid rent). The voters did turn down a proposed fee added onto vehicle registrations to fund the parks, but registration fees are already high for newer vehicles.
.
.
I just read this article that gave some good details on what it is taking to keep some of the parks on the closed list open:

http://www.redding.com/news/2012/feb/25/efforts-continue-to-save-castle-crags-state-park/
.
.
Here's another recent thread in addition to the two related ones I see listed under related topics below:
http://www.summitpost.org/phpBB3/budget-cuts-and-our-mountains-t60466.html

I love this State and the parks, but I do feel like State employees are paid too much. Taxes keep goin up to cover high-paid employees and retirement checks.

It's just too bad there isn't a volunteer system in place to keep these parks open, or maybe there aren't enough volunteers available?

cdog wrote:I love this State and the parks, but I do feel like State employees are paid too much. Taxes keep goin up to cover high-paid employees and retirement checks.

This isn't meant to detract from the OP but I wonder what those State employees are getting paid at the AG Check Points at our borders, waving their arms all day long for cars to proceed that they never even check?

Marmaduke wrote:

cdog wrote:I love this State and the parks, but I do feel like State employees are paid too much. Taxes keep goin up to cover high-paid employees and retirement checks.

This isn't meant to detract from the OP but I wonder what those State employees are getting paid at the AG Check Points at our borders, waving their arms all day long for cars to proceed that they never even check?

$179 million per year, for 1281 positions.

http://2008-09.archives.ebudget.ca.gov/ ... tment.html

mrchad9 wrote:

Marmaduke wrote:

cdog wrote:I love this State and the parks, but I do feel like State employees are paid too much. Taxes keep goin up to cover high-paid employees and retirement checks.

This isn't meant to detract from the OP but I wonder what those State employees are getting paid at the AG Check Points at our borders, waving their arms all day long for cars to proceed that they never even check?

$179 million per year, for 1281 positions.

http://2008-09.archives.ebudget.ca.gov/ ... tment.html

This is an excellent point. I shop in Oregon all the time and cross the border frequently. Most of the time I am just waved through and I don't even have a front license plate on my truck, so they have no idea where I am coming from as I pull into the checkpoint. Rarely am I even asked and never has the massive amounts of produce I bought while shopping been an issue.

This is just one of several government programs that are ripe for elimination. This one alone seems like it would fund the state parks for years to come...

Again, the whole park closure fiasco seems like a giant middle digit to the people of the state.

Is that on salaries or everything including facilities, utilities, etc? Living in a small-ish town with a check station, I see the job postings from time to time. I suppose it's a good way to find work once your seasonal lift ops job is up, but the line-level checkers aren't onboard the public employee gravy train. Not that the program is any more practical if most of the costs go to infrastructure, but it's important to separate the two.

IMO, if they dropped all their bullshit rules and fees and left the parks open to the public with minimal services (clean the bathrooms, empty the trash) this sort of thing would be less likely to happen. More eyes and all that. But then they wouldn't have any leverage with which to claw their budget back.

You beat me to it Bubba, yes that's almost $140,000/year per employee (benefits I'm sure a part of that) that could go to a state parks program that actually generates money. Even if half those positions were deemed "needed", that's $90 million that could be allocated to the state parks.

mattyj wrote:Is that on salaries or everything including facilities, utilities, etc?

If you go at the link, and look around, it appears to be salaries, pension, and other benefits. Not for facilities. Doesn't matter... if they are earning more than $9/hr then they are on the public employee gravy train.

Why should a line-level AG checker earn more than someone working the night shift at a gas station?

Looked around and can't find anything stating that the number is salaries/benefits only. Link?

The job postings I've seen have been in that range. I think more like $10/hr, but in return you have to wear a uniform and stand there waving at traffic all day . . . if I had to pick, I'd rather work the night shift at a gas station.

With some obvious exceptions like public safety / prison guards, in my experience the majority of public workers aren't raking in the cash. The problem is that the top 10% seniority wise seem to be taking home dumptrucks full of it, on top of the whole pension mess.

The point being - they could pay some dude to hose out bathrooms and haul off trash with the current state parks budget, and firing a couple people who screen traffic on 80 isn't going to reopen the parks. Unfortunately when the axe comes down it lops off 10 people on the bottom instead of one administrator at the top.

I see no reason to facilitate the state's idiocy. If a park closed, what use it is? What harm is done by people looting it? Why bother with a caretaker? You cannot go there anyway. Bottom line is that it is public property and should be OPEN to the public. Period.

And I'll be damned if I would support them spending 2 cents to keep it closed.

mattyj wrote:Looked around and can't find anything stating that the number is salaries/benefits only. Link?

In the link provided the table says the costs exclude infrastructure, which is another 4.8 million and included on a seperate line.