Thanks Barbara.

Wow, I can't believe they are thinking of closing Big Basin.

There's very roughly 30 million vehicles registered in Calif. Alleged $70M parks "cutback" divided by 30M = $2.33 per vehicle.

So why a $15 per vehicle tax?

Looks like another tax grab to me ... they should just charge a couple dollars admission per person.

First, "very roughly" means nothing.

Second, the $70 million from the General Fund does not sustain the State Park System.

The current day-use fees run between $6 and $20. That money used to go back into the State Park System to provide standard operating levels. Over the years, that funding has been pulled out of the State Park System to fund Governor and Legislature cronies. The $15 fee will provide funds to bring the State Parks back to standard operating levels.

I wrote: "There's very roughly 30 million vehicles registered in Calif."

toedtoes wrote: "First, 'very roughly' means nothing"

Per USA Dept of Transportation statistics for year *2006*,
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs06/htm/mv1.htm ,
the TOTAL Private & Commercial vehicles registered in Calif are 32,658,393.

The 2006 actual vehicles registered is 8% higher than my "very roughly 30M" estimate ... plenty close.

That's just $2.14 extra tax per vehicle to raise the alleged $70M shortfall, instead of the $2.33 I originally estimated ... which simply further amplifies my point that a $15 tax per vehicle is just a tax grab.

If state park "current day-use fees run between $6 and $20" AND in addition they ALSO need $70M state general funds, then the state is not being very forthright in their budgeting ... big part of the reason I don't trust anything Govt says when it comes to money & budgeting.

Only in Gov't is a slowing in the rate of INCREASED spending called a "reduction" or "cut back". That's like a consumer buying a $200 pr of shoes, marked down to $150, and claiming they "saved" $50, but what the really did is SPEND $150.

If businesses used the Govt's definition of accounting, all businessmen & businesswomen would be in jail for committing fraud & embezzlement.

How is that not being forthright? Yes, it costs a lot to maintain the parks and keep them safe for California - more than what they get from the General Fund. Nowhere have they said otherwise. What they have said is that without those funds, they cannot continue to operate.

The 2008-09 budget for California State Parks includes $149 million from the state's tax-based General Fund. This represents just slightly more than one-tenth of one percent of the state's total General Fund Budget ($149 million divided by $103.4 billion = 0.13%).

Assuming a $15 billion deficit in the overall state budget, then entirely eliminating the Department of Parks and Recreation and closing all 279 parks in California would fill less than 1 percent of the need. Increase that deficit estimate to $24.3 billion and you're looking at 0.6% of the need.

According to The Role of California State Parks in the California Economic System, James R. King, JK Inc., December 2002:

Based on a 2002 study, visitors generate more than $6.5 billion dollars in total output and new sales for private businesses in communities around State parks yearly as a result of visitor spending. The tax revenue from that spending generates $2.35 in General Fund revenue FOR the State for every dollar of General Fund received by State Parks to operate the system (primarily from sales and income taxes on the travel and tourism industry).

The $70 million being cut from State Parks is for THIS fiscal year (2009-2010). Within 2 years, Arnold intends on removing ALL General Funds from the State Parks budget. That means the Department of Parks and Recreation has to find funding for the full $149 million. If the $15 fee goes through, they will no longer receive the day-use fees (except for those provided by the out-of-state tourists) since all California plated non-commercial vehicles will have free access, so they have to provide for that loss of funding also.

But of course, in the best interests of our failing economy, let's close our State Parks and give up that $6.5 billion dollars being generated yearly BECAUSE of our parks.

In addition, again in the best interests of our failing economy, let's withdraw $70 million dollars from State Parks and lose $164.5 million in sales and income tax revenue this year. Then, will eliminate the additional $79 million from State Parks in the next two years and lose an additional $185.65 million in sales and income tax revenue.

Good business sense: save $149 million and lose $350.15 million.