It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


California to Shut 70 State Parks

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on May, 14 2011 @ 09:33 AM
Those guys are a joke. Close 70 state parks... to save 33 million over 2 years in a 15.4 BILLION yearly deficit?

California to Shut 70 State Parks

California will close a fourth of its parks to save $33 million over the next two years as leaders of the most-populous state work to close a $15.4 billion budget deficit.

The Parks and Recreation Department said it would close 70 of 278 sites from the redwoods of the northern coast to the deserts of the southeast. The Governor’s Mansion in Sacramento, no longer a residence, also will be shut. Those facilities draw 8 percent of park attendance.

The closings were mandated by a bill that Governor Jerry Brown signed in March as part of a series of budget cuts that amounted to $12.5 billion. The measures reduced the state’s budget deficit from $26.6 billion.

And another cut in the budget in California :

In addition to the parks shutdowns, Brown proposed to dispense with the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board today. The panel hears unemployment and disability disputes with the Employment Development Department. Eliminating it would save as much as $1.2 million a year in salary and travel costs, he said.

It seems to me that is a very important service being killed.

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 09:36 AM
There you go progressive tree huggers, close down your parks.

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 09:47 AM
Anytime a state tries to close their parks, I always get this sick feeling in my stomach, because I know there's some twisted reason as to why this is being done. If they wanted to save money, or put more money back into the program, all they'd have to do is add a dollar to the park fees (and if there aren't any) make a dollar fee for entrance and everyone would be glad to pay it, and the millions of visitors each year would nearly knock this chapter of spending out of the equation. These areas need to be state owned to keep developers out. They closed a portion of the Blue Ridge Parkway several years ago and within a year there were homes being built all over that strip of old parkway. Parts of the Boone Fork Trail had to be rerouted, but you could still see the houses you were cutting around. Its disgusting. I go camping to get away from civilization, not to walk through some @$$hole's backyard. The last time I went they had this beautiful open pasture with a great view of Grandfather Mountain flagged off for god knows what kind of project. This kind of thing really makes me want to go all Earth First on these people and burn their houses to the ground.

edit on 14-5-2011 by Mactire because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 09:53 AM

They will close down state parks, but continue to support millions of illegal aliens with taxpayers money. Until they address illegal immigration nothing will change.

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 10:00 AM
reply to post by Mactire

If I were a betting man, I would bet the governor had received a few letters full of cash to close those state parks to sell them in a few months to private contractors.

Since this is America, you can bet on it.

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 10:08 AM
Is China finally demanding some of their collateral, and actually getting it ?
It starts...

When James Baker made his keynote speech in 1987, he stated that, "No longer will the World Bank carry this debt unsecured. The only assets we have to collateralize are federal lands and national parks." Baker's definition of federal lands includes Heritage sites, of which there are about 20 in the United States. I say "about" 20, because they are being added on a regular basis. As I write this article, Congress is about to vote on a proposed Rim of the Valley National Park that would include over 500,000 acres of National Forest land and 170,000 parcels of private property including many farms and ranches.

Quoted from:

edit on 14-5-2011 by d3ftronix because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 10:19 AM
I'm from the UK and have always admired US, the Land of the Free? Why don't you folks really find out where all your money is going! I have heard that the Federal Reserve has never had an audit? Its similar in Europe the EU has had an audit but since it began the accounts have never been balanced with millions going missing. A recent article in the Daily Mail a month or so back said £99 was being paid for a single light bulb in some government departments and in the NHS £99 was being paid for a medical scew for surgery that could have been bought for 99p in a local B&Q? Where's our money going to? Governments have no money! It is only the money we give them through our taxes ! Its yours make sure they account for it and spend it well.

What also amazes me are some of the threads at ATS and on you tube for technology that cars, heating etc that can run on water (HHO) with no carbon dioxide. Apparently this has been available as an alternative source for years. Why is this being kept from us?? Looks like TPTB are seeking to protect their investments and still derive and profit (also control) us. Wake up US, wake up UK, wake up world. You are not slaves !!!

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 10:28 AM
reply to post by Mactire

Would have to agree with you. Something is up with the closures of the Cal. parks. The first thing that comes to mind is that map of the United States that's been floating around here forever that is all red colored(representing the areas planned as all natural reserve) with the small corridors along main highways (representing where the masses will all live). They've got to start closing areas off somewhere to initiate that transition. Here's that map.

I remember 10-15 years ago, camping in the state parks was around $22 a night. Then a few years later it was back down to like $15. I clearly remember the price fluctuating and asking the park ranger why. I remember being told the price hikes were for covering the cost of new maintenance, and of course, I was fine with that. Most people that use the parks appreciate them and understand price hikes, so it makes no sense that they would have to close even one park. No sense at all, like you said, even one dollar per person would fix any cost problems.

There is a conspiracy here, just not sure what it is.
edit on 14-5-2011 by SunnyDee because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 01:26 PM
reply to post by Vitchilo

That's really sad.. I'm a huge fan of public parks, recreation areas and reservations. 33m is a tiny blip on the budget, it's absolutely criminal that they target something so massive for a itty bitty tiny expenditure.

don't be surprised to see Cali sell the Redwoods state park and within a few months loggers tear them down. California will never balance their budgets as long as they don't target the real expenditures: Public assistance for illegals.

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 01:32 PM
reply to post by SunnyDee

Conspiracy? Easy. Real estate or mineral/resource based corporations HATE parks and reservations .. once land is decommissioned as a park/reserve .. it's open for development and or mining/logging. It's always suspicious when a park closes, let alone 25% of parks. Besides that, a lot of states fund their parks through lottery funds. Then counting the millions raised in fees and donations. I bet if they said we will close unless we can raise $33m they would have it raised within a week.

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 04:28 PM
Its a good place to start. State parks are a drain on anyone in the area that pays local taxes. Hopefully they do sell the land like a previous poster suggested. All that land out of the tax base drives up costs for others in the area. Add state land to the tax base and more revenue is raised, not to mention the revenue raised from selling the land.

Government (state, local and federal) is the single biggest landowner in the US. All that land is a drain on the system, instead of being used to help the system.

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 04:33 PM
reply to post by d3ftronix

If the IMF tries to take ownership of one little square inch of America, I vote we nuke their asses. Really. I totally mean that.

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 04:40 PM
reply to post by thorazineshuffle

That kind of name-calling isn't acceptable here.

If you can't debate in a civil manner, then go troll youtube or other fright-wing sites.

As much as it sucks, it's not like California has a choice at this point.

Why can't they legalize marijuana and tax/regulate the hell out of it? They could make mad money.

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 04:42 PM
reply to post by Rockpuck

How ignorant do you have to be to claim such a thing?

Public assistance for illegals?

15.4 billion?

I'm not buying it. Nice try though.
edit on 14-5-2011 by The Sword because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 04:51 PM
I'm sure most kids won't care as they'll be on their xbox... not like the majority of this generation goes outside really :/

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 05:02 PM
reply to post by SunnyDee is a thought....maybe they are going to use this land to build more FEMA camps....

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 05:51 PM

And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks...will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."

Thomas Jefferson

And I really seriously mean that if they ever try to seize American property, we should treat them like the enemy army they are, and declare war on them.

We SHOULD have listened to Jefferson in the first place. But since we didnt, I say we make them fight for it if they want it.

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:07 PM
reply to post by croweboy

Some things are worth spending money on .. preserving even a small portion of land (which parks are compared to massive tracts we destroy for city development, urban sprawl and destructive farming) is well worth the investment.

reply to post by The Sword

I don't know if you're being sarcastic or not? I never quoted a price paid on illegals, but the cost is astronomical. Cali has a huge revenue because of it's large wealthy and middle class, as well as corporate taxes. Mexicans (because that's what they are, if you don't want to call them illegals, they are Mexicans) are the largest drain on California resources.. millions of them. Estimated around 4 million illegals with about 8 million direct descendants. The vast majority of which are low income and in poverty, using California tax funded social benefits. Though I would agree without their slave labor, California Liberal hypocrites wouldn't have those lovely gated communities with immaculate lawns and wonderful fresh produce. It's easy to be well off, have a nanny, a cook, a Gardner all working for $8 and support illegal immigration.

(ps, sorry to all the Liberals for exposing your support of slave labor, it may have hurt your feelings.)

Having a tight budget and also providing services to illegal immigrants has taken a financial toll. Another argument is that the children of illegal immigrants take up resources when it comes to education and make the education system worse than what it already is. A study done by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) found the cost of illegal immigrants in California to amount to $10.5 billion annually. This figure includes the cost of incarceration, health care, and education of illegal immigrants.

And this is from a immigration support website, I would say an unbiased source no?
edit on 5/14/2011 by Rockpuck because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 15 2011 @ 03:04 AM
I was very sad to read about this, they should not close State Parks, in order to save money and balance the budget. The economy is not good, and many people who do not have extra cash, use the State Parks for recreation and for vacations.

State Parks create their own revenue stream. Most government programs are a drain on revenue, why close something that is making money. Why not pick another government program that does not create any revenue?

I hope that the land where the parks are is preserved and not sold off to developers.

edit on 15-5-2011 by PacificBlue because: fix

posted on May, 15 2011 @ 03:46 AM
Agenda 21.

Piece by piece, they are restructuring the land for sustainable development.

Parks must be shut down to preserve the wildlife from human activity.

That's my take on it.

Certainly not about the budget.

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in