Schwarzenegger proposes closing 80 percent of California state parks

[disorderlyvision]

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_12481195?source=most_viewed

Nearly every state park in the Bay Area — from the towering redwoods at Big Basin to Angel Island, Mount Tamalpais to Mount Diablo and every state beach from Año Nuevo in San Mateo County to Big Sur — would close as part of budget cuts proposed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

In all, 220 of California's 279 state parks, about 80 percent, would be padlocked starting as soon as Labor Day, under details of a historic closing plan released Thursday night by the state parks department.

"We've never been in as serious a predicament as we are facing right now. It is potentially devastating," said state parks spokesman Roy Stearns.

Layoffs could hit 1,500 or more of the 2,900 state parks employees,

[ItsTime]

why not just sell them to someone who knows how to make the profitable?

[torchbearer]

Sale them to private owners.

[sailor]

They ain`t theirs to sell.

[RevolutionSD]

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_12481195?source=most_viewed

Nearly every state park in the Bay Area — from the towering redwoods at Big Basin to Angel Island, Mount Tamalpais to Mount Diablo and every state beach from Año Nuevo in San Mateo County to Big Sur — would close as part of budget cuts proposed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

In all, 220 of California's 279 state parks, about 80 percent, would be padlocked starting as soon as Labor Day, under details of a historic closing plan released Thursday night by the state parks department.

"We've never been in as serious a predicament as we are facing right now. It is potentially devastating," said state parks spokesman Roy Stearns.

Layoffs could hit 1,500 or more of the 2,900 state parks employees,

How stupid can government be? Hello?????? Time to privatize this land OBVIOUSLY! A 2nd-grader could tell you that!

It's like, if the government can't own it, NOBODY can use it! Fucking GREAT! :mad:

[torchbearer]

They ain`t theirs to sell.

then who is going to sell them?
a homestead act?
wtf are you advocating?
Sure, the government "never really owned land", but this is a good way to get it out of the hands of the government.

[Mesogen]

Hell yeah, sell them to logging companies! They could mow down all the sequoias! Think how awesome all that wood would be.

[sailor]

Sure, the government "never really owned land", but this is a good way to get it out of the hands of the government.

Yeah, paying ransom.

[torchbearer]

Hell yeah, sell them to logging companies! They could mow down all the sequoias! Think how awesome all that wood would be.

Green Peace and similar groups would have a strong incentive to offer more money.
Anyone who clear-cuts will eventually have the incentive to plant new trees unless they will find themselves with no more crops to harvest.

[torchbearer]

Yeah, paying ransom.

To who for what?

[SamuraisWisdom]

I am 100% against this. There has to be other ways of saving money than closing down state parks. If all of that land were to be sold off to private owners it would get developed and essentially lost. I live in New England, I've seen it happen before. Over here in CT, pretty much the entire state has become suburbia with the occasional relief of a state park that without government funding would be sold off to developers and likely transformed into another neighborhood. State and National parks are one of the few things that government has a place in.

[RevolutionSD]

Hell yeah, sell them to logging companies! They could mow down all the sequoias! Think how awesome all that wood would be.

We could plant new ones.

This is a basic example of why government doesn't work, and we need to abolish it. Government should not own OR control land. So, the idea of government "selling" land, is ridiculous. Government steals to fund itself. It's nothing but the mafia with flags outside their buildings. They stole the land and have been stealing money to maintain it (which they do an incredibly poor job of) ever since.

ALL land should be privately held. In fact, the idea of "private property" is actually redundant. All property is owned by someone. When it's owned by government, it goes to shit, as we can clearly see now.

[torchbearer]

I am 100% against this. There has to be other ways of saving money than closing down state parks. If all of that land were to be sold off to private owners it would get developed and essentially lost. I live in New England, I've seen it happen before. Over here in CT, pretty much the entire state has become suburbia with the occasional relief of a state park that without government funding would be sold off to developers and likely transformed into another neighborhood. State and National parks are one of the few things that government has a place in.

I know, all those evil capitalist will exploit the land.

[Bruno]

We could plant new ones.

This is a basic example of why government doesn't work, and we need to abolish it. Government should not own OR control land. So, the idea of government "selling" land, is ridiculous. Government steals to fund itself. It's nothing but the mafia with flags outside their buildings. They stole the land and have been stealing money to maintain it (which they do an incredibly poor job of) ever since.

ALL land should be privately held. In fact, the idea of "private property" is actually redundant. All property is owned by someone. When it's owned by government, it goes to shit, as we can clearly see now.


...and wait a thousand years....

Cutting down forests and "replanting" never returns the ecosystem to what it was.

just sayin'

[RevolutionSD]

State and National parks are one of the few things that government has a place in.

How do you reconcile the fact that they absolutely fail in running these parks, and that they steal money from people to do this? Also, government pollutes far more than private industry. Public property is a disastrous concept that has never worked. Turn the ownership of these lands over to private hands and the free market will solve the problem.

[RevolutionSD]

...and wait a thousand years....

Cutting down forests and "replanting" never returns the ecosystem to what it was.

just sayin'

Who's cutting down forests anyway? Why do we need violence to protect forests? Are you saying that without government, we wouldn't have trees?

[RevolutionSD]

Wow, I thought this board was about people who believe in the free market, not pro-government socialists!

[Bruno]

Who's cutting down forests anyway? Why do we need violence to protect forests? Are you saying that without government, we wouldn't have trees?

The post I responded to (and the sentence highlighted in bold by me) said we could just plant new ones. You. That is who.


Wow, I thought this board was about people who believe in the free market, not pro-government socialists!

How in the hell do you take one comment about old growth forests not being easily replaceable and turn it into a pro-government, socialist stance?

edit : Not only should you not take one comment from one individual to ascertain that they are pro-government socialists :rolleyes:, but it is also not fair to lump thousands of individuals on this board together based on a comment made by one individual that you misconstrued.

[sailor]

Anyway this is probably a ploy to get bailed out anyways. On one hand it puts pressure on Obama and on another hand it makes an unpopular move an easier sell for him.

Don`t you know we have to give Califarnia all this money, it`s for the parks man! Don`t you like nature?! Save the trees, give California billions in federal aid.

[MozoVote]

I'm glad we have figures in our history like Theodore Roosevelt and John Muir, that wanted some of this land preserved for us to see today.

But I think the Governator is using an old political gambit. Threaten to cut something that is popular, and hope the citizens soften up and accept a tax increase. I remember Orange County threatening to close the beach campground fire pits once ... it didn't take long before citizen outcry got the county commissioners to find money for the parks department.

This is also one of those opportunities to embarass the citizenry in front of tourists. People from out of state and out of country visit these places - then bad mouth California for being too "cheap" to keep the parks open.

[Mesogen]

Green Peace and similar groups would have a strong incentive to offer more money.
Anyone who clear-cuts will eventually have the incentive to plant new trees unless they will find themselves with no more crops to harvest.

The Giant Sequoias are thousands of years old.

You can't farm these types of trees. Cutting them down would be terrible.

[Mesogen]

Who's cutting down forests anyway? Why do we need violence to protect forests? Are you saying that without government, we wouldn't have trees?

How do you ultimately protect a forest from violence without force?

Sure you could convince logging companies to leave the forest alone, but if one doesn't, then what? Lose the forest or use force.


Wow, I thought this board was about people who believe in the free market, not pro-government socialists!

If there were no government, and a logging company tried cutting down 2000 year old trees, I'd find a way to get together with like-minded people, gather up some guns, and gun down anyone cutting down Giant Sequoias.

But since we have government, we don't have logging companies cutting these trees down and we don't have bands of people moving in to gun down the loggers.

[apropos]

Having recently visited California's state and national parks, I can honestly say that the thought of having them developed for McDonalds and tract housing suburbs is a truly disgusting one.

Because we definitely need more strip malls, housing, and fast food chains in this country.

[sailor]

The Giant Sequoias are thousands of years old.

You can't farm these types of trees. Cutting them down would be terrible.

Please stop with the lazy thinking already. It`s emberassing. Obviously enough a giant sequoia is more valuable to a private buisiness as a tourist attraction than as firewood. No buisiness would cut it down.


If there were no government, and a logging company tried cutting down 2000 year old trees, I'd find a way to get together with like-minded people, gather up some guns, and gun down anyone cutting down Giant Sequoias.

But since we have government, we don't have logging companies cutting these trees down and we don't have bands of people moving in to gun down the loggers.

Oh yes the wonderful government. Doesn`t it make you just warm and fuzzy inside thinking about it. The wonderful Big Brother, he cares about us. We are blessed to live in his shade.

[axiomata]

Sell them to businesses and private individuals with the condition that they be held in public trust. Allow owners to charge entrance fees as required. Also allow owners to deduct maintenance expenses from their tax burden.

[MozoVote]

There aren't many examples of privately operated natural preserves. Grandfather Mountain in N.C. is one - although even in that case, the heirs of the family trust that owns it got tired of running the business, and set up some kind of conservation easement with the state.

[axiomata]

There aren't many examples of privately operated natural preserves. Grandfather Mountain in N.C. is one - although even in that case, the heirs of the family trust that owns it got tired of running the business, and set up some kind of conservation easement with the state.
It's impossible to compete with subsidized public parks.

[Bruno]

Please stop with the lazy thinking already. It`s emberassing. Obviously enough a giant sequoia is more valuable to a private buisiness as a tourist attraction than as firewood. No buisiness would cut it down.

.

Private businesses do in fact cut down trees to sell them as valuable lumber (not necessarily firewood). Who do you think cuts down the trees for our homes, furniture, and other needs?

[Dr.3D]

So California is bankrupt. Arnold says he is going to close the state parks.
Doesn't that mean he doesn't want any of the tourist money to come to California?

I guess California doesn't need tourist money anyway.... :rolleyes:

[Mesogen]

Please stop with the lazy thinking already. It`s emberassing. Obviously enough a giant sequoia is more valuable to a private buisiness as a tourist attraction than as firewood. No buisiness would cut it down.
If it were privately owned outright, nothing would stop the owner from cutting them down.

And it would have less value as firewood OR a tourist attraction than it would as developed real estate.



Oh yes the wonderful government. Doesn`t it make you just warm and fuzzy inside thinking about it. The wonderful Big Brother, he cares about us. We are blessed to live in his shade.

Ah, lazy thinking. Of course the only government we could ever have is the one we have now.

[Mesogen]

Sell them to businesses and private individuals with the condition that they be held in public trust. Allow owners to charge entrance fees as required. Also allow owners to deduct maintenance expenses from their tax burden.

That's just outsourcing and contracting. It's still the government controlling them.

[apropos]

Additionally, I don't think the practice of "creative destruction" lends itself readily to conservation of past landmarks for future generations.

Gettysburg has long been at risk of being repurposed for malls and housing, for example. The field itself would never be as profitable through tourism as it could be through rentals. However...

[RevolutionSD]

The Giant Sequoias are thousands of years old.

You can't farm these types of trees. Cutting them down would be terrible.

Again, who is cutting them down?

[RevolutionSD]

How do you ultimately protect a forest from violence without force?

Sure you could convince logging companies to leave the forest alone, but if one doesn't, then what? Lose the forest or use force.



If there were no government, and a logging company tried cutting down 2000 year old trees, I'd find a way to get together with like-minded people, gather up some guns, and gun down anyone cutting down Giant Sequoias.

But since we have government, we don't have logging companies cutting these trees down and we don't have bands of people moving in to gun down the loggers.

So you're pro-regulation. This is a libertarian board, giving power to government regulators is not what we are about. Instead, think of ways in which we could do without government here.

[sailor]

If it were privately owned outright, nothing would stop the owner from cutting them down.

And it would have less value as firewood OR a tourist attraction than it would as developed real estate.

When are you going to stop emberassing yourself? A parcel of land without a giant sequoia on it is far cheaper than a parcel of land with it, thus whoever is planning to develop real estate is going to buy the cheaper sequoia-less land, because he is interested in his bottom line.

You are just pilling nonsense after nonsense. It would take an irrational decision to cut down a giant sequoia. Of course it could stil happen, but government ownership doesn`t preclude that possibility. If anything the government is far more likely to do something irrational than a private owner is and has far less incentive not too. Never mind protecting its income stream, which the government doesn`t need to having the ability to extract money by force. A buisiness also has its name to uphold, because its customers are free to refuse further dealings with it.

And in fact it is the government who we could do absolutely nothing about if it decided to cut down the seqoia since they have monopoly on force. A buisiness that was planning to do something like that could at least be bought out by aquiring its shares.

What a well of brilliant fucking ideas you people are. Yea lets have the entity that did nuclear testing on US soil take care of enviroment conservation! Yes that is going to work out the best. :rolleyes:



Ah, lazy thinking. Of course the only government we could ever have is the one we have now.

There is only one type of government people who grovel at government`s feet and worshipp power can have.

[ItsTime]

Thank god the government saved the trees! LMAO How many wild fires has the government caused with bad regulation?!

[SamuraisWisdom]

So you're pro-regulation. This is a libertarian board, giving power to government regulators is not what we are about. Instead, think of ways in which we could do without government here.

So what we're all supposed to have the same views because this is a libertarian board? Come on. OK, how do YOU propose we save all of that land from development in the private sector. I for one believe that it cannot be done. Unless there is lawful protection of the land (i.e. the government owning it) then eventually it will get developed and destroyed. Do you have any national or state parks around where you live? What do you think would happen to those if all of a sudden they were left to the private sector. I have quite a few around my home here in CT, and I can guarantee you they'd all be developed within a year if handed over to private owners.

[Objectivist]

No problem, it means no staff and I and others have bolt cutters. I can think of two dozen surfers waiting for this to happen.

Don't forget to pack out your trash people!:cool:

[Objectivist]

why not just sell them to someone who knows how to make the profitable?

ME! me me me me me. I'll take the South Coast including Big Sur.

[torchbearer]

The Giant Sequoias are thousands of years old.

You can't farm these types of trees. Cutting them down would be terrible.

sounds like you need to buy those trees and preserve them. nothing more SACRED than PRIVATE property.,

[idiom]

There should simply be much higher access fees to the parks.

[carmaphob]

If it were privately owned outright, nothing would stop the owner from cutting them down.

And it would have less value as firewood OR a tourist attraction than it would as developed real estate.




Ah, lazy thinking. Of course the only government we could ever have is the one we have now.


Having recently visited California's state and national parks, I can honestly say that the thought of having them developed for McDonalds and tract housing suburbs is a truly disgusting one.

Because we definitely need more strip malls, housing, and fast food chains in this country.

Well from what I know they zone land and there are laws that prohibit building and developing land, enforced by the DNR. Hence I cannot build on the marsh land I own in MN. I don't mind though. Its nice to see the waterfowl.

[Objectivist]

The Giant Sequoias are thousands of years old.

You can't farm these types of trees. Cutting them down would be terrible.

There are areas of the state that have burned, leaving good lumber available for harvest because the trees are dead from the fire. The wood is still good and enviro-groups like the Sierra Club hold the process up long enough for Bark Beetles to destroy good lumber. That revenue is in the billions of dollars and it goes to waste and we end up getting our lumber from Canada.

[angelatc]

I am 100% against this. There has to be other ways of saving money than closing down state parks. If all of that land were to be sold off to private owners it would get developed and essentially lost. I live in New England, I've seen it happen before. Over here in CT, pretty much the entire state has become suburbia with the occasional relief of a state park that without government funding would be sold off to developers and likely transformed into another neighborhood. State and National parks are one of the few things that government has a place in.

I agree with you. This is why it is hard for Libertarians to win elections. People don't mind paying taxes for parks and libraries. This isn't a federal issue - if the state of California wants to own parks then by all means - they should. Apparently they need to come up with a better way to finance them though.

[idiom]

sounds like you need to buy those trees and preserve them. nothing more SACRED than PRIVATE property.,

People give large tracts of land to the government as a public trust.

Otherwise they have to find a way for a private trust to pay millions in property taxes for the large tracts of land and set up really complicated trusts to employ people to manage the land.

It also gives the government land to return to the descendants of people the government stole form.

[Objectivist]

There should simply be much higher access fees to the parks.

Makes no difference if it remains in government hands. They'll always spend more than they take in.

[torchbearer]

People give large tracts of land to the government as a public trust.

Otherwise they have to find a way for a private trust to pay millions in property taxes for the large tracts of land and set up really complicated trusts to employ people to manage the land.

It also gives the government land to return to the descendants of people the government stole form.

A private non-profit set up to protect a tract of land would make more sense.
If you care- then your money goes to protect it.
People vote with their money in a free market. I know, the evil free market. :rolleyes:

[angelatc]

The Giant Sequoias are thousands of years old.

You can't farm these types of trees. Cutting them down would be terrible.

They actually do farm these trees. Wood from established giant sequias is too brittle to be of much use though.

[idiom]

What freemarket?

You can't pay the state in Gold for the land. If you entered a bidding war with a developer who are you bidding against?

The combined power of JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs who are just using the land as a laundering scheme?

The safest places for the parks is shutdown in state hands. The ecosystems will survive and thrive and we can sell em off to above-board bidders after the civil war.

[Objectivist]

They actually do farm these trees. Wood from established giant sequias is too brittle to be of much use though.

I'll clarify my comments as they pertain to Douglas Firs and Redwoods.

[torchbearer]

What freemarket?

You can't pay the state in Gold for the land. If you entered a bidding war with a developer who are you bidding against?

The combined power of JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs who are just using the land as a laundering scheme?

The safest places for the parks is shutdown in state hands. The ecosystems will survive and thrive and we can sell em off to above-board bidders after the civil war.

Cows didn't survive because the government protected them. The buffalo didn't survive because the government protected them.
They survived because they were private property.

[idiom]

Cows didn't survive because the government protected them. The buffalo didn't survive because the government protected them.
They survived because they were private property.

Private property is the endangered species just at the moment.

[torchbearer]

Private property is the endangered species just at the moment.

NOt sure I understand you statement.
If private property is endangered, then you fucking trees aren't protected either.
Without the people's money, the government will collapse. California's government is about to collapse.

[FindLiberty]

Screw the park fees.... small potatos, total collapse is the big issue... fiat money becomes worthless and the almighty printing press can't even save our government from it's self, either.

I'm glad Arnie's “close the parks” straw man is confined to the fluff issue of "admission to the parks", i.e., close the parks to the public (this “threat” reminds me of the republicrat Contract With America crap that pulled that same nonsense to get the budget balanced, etc. back in the 90’s…)

Selling those parks by turning 'em all over at auction to the highest bidder who’s actually motivated to protect them far better that government goons could do. That way they can remain open and become “for-profit” to receive better care and probably also continue to attract tourist money, etc.

Firing the state "Parks" workers would better issue to bring up here. That’s a real start to save some serious money whether it’s fresh bailout fiat variety or tax burden variety. Unfortunately, Hell will have to freeze over or be brought upon us all, first, before we see a reduction in the size and scope of government!

Instead we hear, “the parks will have to be closed”.

I think the motives for this straw man announcement should be considered here cause it’s really a first level verbal threat to the public~ Big daddy is gonna’ take away something you "want" to gain back your 55% servitude. These ass-clown masters have bigger plans if that does not work for them. Think how hundreds of millions have died because of governments! Don’t doubt that they will find a way to use death and violence to get their subjects to submit… Maybe it will start with mandatory re-education or attitude-adjustment camps and progress form there after it’s determined that those camps are getting just too darn expensive to operate, etc.

Remembering that gubermint is just an agency of lies, coercion and force (not eloquence or reason) has me very grateful they have not disrupted the food and water supply (yet) 'cause they are not getting the necessary numbers of cooperative slaves they need to survive... just wait 'till the tshtf for their real and their true colors to show through!

If you are paying attention, the groundwork is being put in place even if they don’t all realize it as they stomp out each remaining freedom ember that’s still glowing.

[idiom]

My relative created the largest Kiwi preserve in New Zealand on private land. The place is over-run with the things. I am one of the few people I know to have even seen one let alone picked one up. Here the department of Conservation doesn't cost a lot to run and is non-controversial.

In the very-near term any ammount of untoward things could go on. Its probably for the best if the parks are shut-down and on the goverments ignore list.

California is pretty blatantly working backwards throught the list of things to cut, it is starting with the most valid government functions and leaving the bollocks till last.

[Brian4Liberty]

I'm glad we have figures in our history like Theodore Roosevelt and John Muir, that wanted some of this land preserved for us to see today.

But I think the Governator is using an old political gambit. Threaten to cut something that is popular, and hope the citizens soften up and accept a tax increase. I remember Orange County threatening to close the beach campground fire pits once ... it didn't take long before citizen outcry got the county commissioners to find money for the parks department.

This is also one of those opportunities to embarass the citizenry in front of tourists. People from out of state and out of country visit these places - then bad mouth California for being too "cheap" to keep the parks open.

I agree.

It's happened before here in California. Politicians like Arnold and his communist friends in the California legislature have no shame. The first thing they do when there is a threat of budget cuts is to attack the things that many people value. They did the exact same thing after Prop 13 passed. These politicians are thugs, blackmailers and extortionists. Including "libertarians" like Arnold.

[silverhawks]

The only way I could possibly agree to a private sale of state parks would be to someone signing a contract to establish a land conservation trust or similar; otherwise, you'll see sequoias and redwoods bulldozed and burned within weeks.

Also, there have to be non-profit volunteer organizations that would offer to take up maintenance of this land, so that the govt. wouldn't have to spend a cent on it.

I've seen it here in Alabama; a developer literally leveled off a mountain, and utterly destroyed a forest to put in yet another set of useless 1-bedroom single-floor subdivisions (which is killing long-term growth in our local economy because no families will move into them). Knowing how government loves big business, I dread to think which private businesses a bunch of corrupt politicians would sell the CA state parks to. More than likely, you'd see 100-year forests burned to the ground to make way for biofuel crops, ala Brazil.

[sarahgop]

close them all and fire 75% of state employees.

[Reason]

oh noes