<<Now I know some will say very low income people will be hurt by having to pay the $15.00 additional for their car registration. But perhaps those same people could or would take advantage of visiting our beautiful state parks in that they won't have to pay the day-use access fee.>>

LI - I think that is a great point. If I have $15 for "fun" per year, there isn't going to be much fun. However, if I pay the $15 for the State Park Access Pass, I can have fun every weekend. The $15 will go further that possible.

When I first moved to this area, it was maybe $4 for day-use access to Folsom Lake. My aunt and I used to split the cost and drive her kids out to the lake on those hot weekday evenings after work for an hour or two - just long enough to cut the heat a bit. Nowadays, I often think about doing that, but I don't want to spend $8 for an hour or two. With the Pass, that hour becomes much more appealing since it won't cost me anything.

Exactly toeds. We are talking about only a tad more then $1.00 per month per vehicle.

Compare that to the cost of the price of one movie theater ticket.

I love this line:

It is only $70 million.

Do we see why CA is in the mess that it is in?

Now, let's talk about the prison system, shall we?

Heavens - please let's not and keep this on topic.

With the proposal of the State Parks Access Pass, we will SAVE $70 million AND we will keep our State Parks open. It makes sense. It makes good sense. It's actually a doable and realistic option and we should be jumping for joy that a logical and effective solution has been proposed and show our full support, instead of whining about the usual nonsense that comes out of the Capitol.

Topping.

Having read other news articles on this proposal, AFAIK the BIG problem with this Calif "State Parks Access Pass" is that it's coerced on ALL car owners via extra taxes on car registrations.

Leave it to politicians to rename a TAX as an "Access Pass" .

Screw that. What if I have no interest in visiting a state park? WHY should I subsidize the leisure time of those who do visit parks? Should I also pay for movie tickets for a family of 10, or their DisneyWorld admissions? I think not.

What is fair, is park admission fees for those who *actually* choose to visit the parks.

Tom - first, it's $15 per year. That's $1.25 per month to have free day-use access to ALL State Parks. While you may not visit State Parks, how many times have your kids gone to one? Go for a day with friends? Go on a school trip? Go on a boy scouts trip? Go out with their buddies to hang out on the beach?

Second, it's not about subsidizing the leisure time of others, it's about keeping the educational programs at the State Parks going. Sutter's Fort, Donner's Pass Museum, the California Railroad Museum, etc. are all supported by the State Parks system. Those are major educational experiences for school kids. But, let's screw that too because $15 is an outrageous amount of money for something as useless as a State Park. Without this, all of those places will be closed. And it won't be a simple flicking of the switch to start them up again.

Everyday there's a post on this forum about how important travel is to the education of our kids. But, here's a chance to ensure an educational experience for all kids (even those who can't afford to travel), but we're too stingy to spare $15 per year to keep it going.

Tom,

In addition to all the things toedtoes mentions, it's also about keeping major tourist attractions open in our State. all of us benefit from tourism.

I'd say there's a fair chance that taxes support something you like to do in which I have little interest.

My city has a $5.00 a month tax which is for our two local libraries and the Summer concert program in our downtown city park. I pay the $5.00 a month for the unit I rent and $5.00 a month under the property tax bill for the house I own. So I pay $10.00 a month. I never go to the Summer concert programs. I hardly use our libraries as we have a ton of books at our clubhouse. So I could take the attitude I am paying $120.00 a year for something I never or hardly use. Quite frankly I would rather pay half of this amount annually toward our State Parks then for the Summer Concerts.

Oh, I pay taxes for our schools. No children or grandchildren of mine attend the schools. I pay a tax for the park close to the house I own. The park is used for the children's sport programs. I don't have any children or grandchildren in those sport programs. And so forth and so on.

I think requiring every Californian to pay to support the state park system is a great idea, although if you own multiple vehicles it will cost you more. The state park system is a valuable resource.

On the other hand, this is California, and based on past experience with "dedicated" taxes/funding, I would expect in a couple of years, the legislators will grab this money for the general fund and reinstate the access fees.

Do you think it will take "a couple of years"? LOL!

Barbara,

Yes, I am probably being too optimistic. LOL

Those of you expressing sentiments such as "requiring every Californian to pay for XXX... is a great idea", and if you are in fact Calif residents, then LOOK IN THE MIRROR to see who is responsible for Calif's runaway spending in the last couple decades. Gimme Gimme Gimme, but make the "other guy pay". Yeah, that's sustainable.

To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, "Socialism is great until you run out of the other people's money".

tom,

you must have missed the posts which informed you taht it's not so much California's "runaway spending" that is to blame, but the lingering effects of the electricity crisis. California was screwed/cheated, defrauded out of Billions of dollars by Enron and other energy companies. It was not accidental, it was completely intentional. California has not recovered from that. The Bush administration did just what Obama has so recently done...told us tough.

Also, since 1983, aside from the four years that Gray Davis was Governor, the Governor of California has been a Republican.

Barbara,
I hate to disagree with you, but the problem is "runaway spending" if you don't have the tax revenues to support it. While the electricity crisis absolutely screwed the average California consumer, who paid for it in higher electricity rates, it has nothing to do with the current budget deficit. The legislature has already added $12 billion in new taxes for the next fiscal year and we still have a $24.3 billion dollar deficit. None of the money in the budget is related to the electricity crisis.

Well I wouldn't argue that in no time flat the access fee for car regisrations will be put in the general fund. Sounds like that is what Sacramento wants to do with the excise gasoline tax, which will leave roads in worse conditions then they are now. This from one of our local newspapers.

http://www.timesheraldonline.com/news/ci_12617425

Tom_h - I am a California native and have never lived elsewhere. I have NEVER expected others to pay for my benefits. I have NEVER b**ched about paying my taxes to help fund schools, pave roads, pay for police/fire departments, build buildings/bridges, and so on - regardless of whether I have ever utilized them.

I pay into state unemployment and have never used it. I pay into medical and have never used it. I pay for local schools and I have never used them. Some things I've paid for through my taxes I will NEVER be able to use.

I pay for all these things because it's part of MY responsibility as a member of the community.

You're right that it's this gimme, gimme, gimme attitude that has screwed us, but you're looking at the wrong people. The people that cause all this trouble are the ones who refuse to consider that good can come from helping out others, not from thinking about only yourself. I have visited a state park maybe twice in the past 5-7 years. However, I realize that keeping those parks functioning will provide more for others than the $15/year can provide for me.

What will the change mean for the out-of-state visitor? Will the day visitor fees increase?

ET,

I don't disagree that the Stata has been spending too much, but it is perfectly true that we have never recovered from the electricity scam. It wasn't only individual consumers who suffered, the State had to borrow huge sums of money, at high interest rates, to keep the power on. That was the beginning of the big deficits and the reason Gray Davis found himself in trouble.

toedtoes, great post!

Birdie - the out-of-state fees will remain the same from what I've heard. The $15 fee is to allow the State Parks to continue to operate without using General Fund monies.

Because of Arnold's cut of $70 million dollars to the Department of Parks and Recreation, without the $15 fee there will be at least 220 State Parks closing as of September this year. It is unclear if DPR will be able to even provide minimal caretaking duties for those 220+ parks with that cut. That means that many will face vandalism and other threats. One of the biggest threats our parks will face with this closure will be fire danger, and that will also threaten California homes and businesses. It will cost us a lot more than $15 to pay for the fire damage that will occur.

As of May, this was the list of State Parks being closed:
http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/712/fi...losed_list.pdf
and this was the list of State Parks that they believed can remain open:
http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/712/fi...pen_units_.pdf

I have recently heard that all State Parks, other than those funded by the gas tax revenue and the most self-sustaining State Parks (the beaches of Southern California), will be closed. I have not seen an updated list at this time.