Read it here.
Among the list to close, Natural Bridge State Park, Red Rock State Park, Lost Dutchman State Park.
Unreal
Printable View
Read it here.
Among the list to close, Natural Bridge State Park, Red Rock State Park, Lost Dutchman State Park.
Unreal
Amazing, isn't it? Three trillion in borrowed funds for Iraq and Afghanistan, troops in a hundred other countries around the world, while bankruptcy closes parks, and eventually many other services, at home. Decades of fiscal mismanagement coming home to roost.
Thunder on the mountain heavy as can be
Mean old twister bearing down on me
All the ladies in Washington scrambling to get out of town
Looks like something bad gonna happen, better roll your airplane down
It's appalling!
It's outrageous! The state park system here in AZ actually generates positive net revenue and all they can think about is saving the $9 million dollar budget. The most short sighted, idiotic legislators you can imagine. I've written to my representatives, state senator and the governor expressing my outrage.
I hope many people will write/call their representatives. This really does sound very short-sighted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan Melle
Hope everyone writes their representative. Are they exploring for oil?????
Last November, when I drove across Arizona to get to Bosque, I was shocked to see every one of the rest stops closed. It's not like there are a lot of alternatives, especially driving I-40. Not a lot of trees along the way either... I think our clock is ticking in California too, but the public outcry over the Governator closing the parks per his plan has been huge. What is happening to this country? :confused:
Sad, so sadQuote:
Originally Posted by Kerry Perkins
Let's play Devil's Advocate for just a moment.
The parks are being closed because of lack of revenue from the parks. Do all of the parks either being closed or remaining open produce revenue through a use pays scheme; I do not know - just asking!?
If yes, and the parks being closed are being closed because the revenue produced does not pay the cost of keeping the park open then it seems those parks are in locations where the park-using public isn't very interested in using the parks.
If the parks are free then how were the ones being closed chosen?
At first blush it sounds terrible to be closing parks, and I agree; however, I have learned never - NEVER - to rely on a newspaper article for the full story.
Alan, do you know the full/true story since you are the only one thus far commenting who is from Arizona?
Jay
"Read it here." from the original poster, takes you right to the State of Arizona Press room, where you can read the state government's press release.... its the official plans as released by the state.
In the state of Arizona, the income from some of parks was enough to keep 9 of them open. Others never generated enough revenue and relied upon the state providing revenue (which is in keeping with the tourism aspect of the budget allocations).
Notable closings are Red Rock Crossing, Natural Bridge, and Pichaco Peak for those that like scenic photography...a check of all the closing/closed sites shows none that were noted specifically for their bird photography...many are historical - Yuma Prison, Tombstone Courthouse, Tubac Presidio, Homolovi ruins, etc. and some were heavily recreation.
A single notable park for bird photographers -- Boyce Thompson remains open as it is managed by a separate entity.
Best regards
Don
I certainly did read that and the mere fact that a park provides scenic photography for a few, or bird photography for a few more is not a reason to keep it open if it is not resonably used by members of the general public. It seems to me that by definition if the park is not generating sufficient revenue then an insufficient number of persons are using the park. Is there another explanation which an unused park should remain open at a revenue loss?Quote:
Originally Posted by DonaldNel
Frankly, if more of the country was run like a business we just might be better off!
None of the state parks in AZ are self-supporting. If forced to be self supporting, all should close, or entrance fees would have to rise substantially (how many would visit if gate entrance was $20, $30 or $40? or more?)
There are many reasons that a state considers funding state parks -- but the primary one for Arizona is that tourism comprises a significant component of the economy. Many snowbirds are attracted to AZ and spend money locally on fuel, food, and even lodging (or an RV space for the snowbirds RVing).
Thus the state funding isn't a charity for the benefit of a few photographers or birders, but actually provides an economic boost for the local economy - the tourists spend money locally, at least for gas and some food, perhaps lodging.
And yes, although I currently live in Oregon, I spent two decades in AZ. Jay - Just noted you are from Queensland. You don't say whether you've been to Arizona, but the population triples in the winter from all the tourists and "snowbirds" (those are people from Canada and the northern states that come to live and be tourists in arizona during the winter from September to May....these people are HEAVY users of most of the state parks. Only a few aren't heavily visited.
best regards
Don
well I hope that at least you can still get in the park (knowing no facilities, esp. at Lost Dutchman. That's an amazing place).
A year or two ago, the governor in NJ proposed closing many state parks and/or reducing the hours of operation. AFter a public outcry and some political maneuvering, the NJ state parks were kept open.
I fear this is going to be a wave of the future in every state. In NJ and most other states, the state must balance the budget every year unlike the federal government that keeps printing money.
Lost Dutchman state park was just a small acreage containing the RV/tent sites. The vista of the end of the Superstitions is accessible from the roads in Apache Junction - you can generally walk around the desert here with no issues - other than the homesites its public lands
Actually that is incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by DonaldNel
Using the states own projections for expenditures and revenue for 2010 ten of the state parks generate positive net revenue and nine do the same in 2011. The projected expenditures for 2010 for all parks currently remaining open, including those losing money, is projected to be $9,463,000 with total revenue projected at $9,273,000 for a net loss of $230,000. For 2011 the projected numbers are expenditures of $9,517,000 with revenue at $9,964,000 for a net positive revenue of $447,000 and net positive revenue of $217,000 for the two years.
Closing several of the parks does make sense financially from this limited viewpoint. What the states projections and plans do not include is the economic impact to the communities and recreation facilities around these parks. Some of the projections on local news stations claim the positive economic impact to the state for these parks is around $150,000,000 for 2010. These are estimates that I can't find supporting data for at this point but I think it is fair to assume that there is a fairly significant impact to some of these communities. The states simple analysis ignores the impact to the states financial condition that would be caused by layoffs and unemployment of park workers and loss of tax revenues from local businesses as well as possible additional layoffs in the public sector.
Closing a few of the parks makes sense but closing parks like Lost Dutchman, which is projected to generate positive revenue of $58,000 in 2010 and positive revenue of $94,000 in 2011, is simply idiotic.
Good to see that at least some the parks have turned around their losses - they weren't making money in the 1980's and thorugh first half of 1990s. At that time, entrance fees weren't charged at Red Rock Crossing(It was brand new back then), Pichaco, and several others.
And looking deeper at the minutes of the Board 1-15-2009, at http://www.pr.state.az.us/board/down...n_01-15-10.pdf
As a whole for all the parks, they lost 1.56M$ in 2009 (revenue minus expenditures)
we see that of the parks remaining open in group A, only 6 of the 9 had positive cash flow in 2009(see page 14, look at revenue minus expenditures under Net Revenue), but all the other parks (6 in Group B including Lost Dutchman, 6 in group C) lost money for 2009. In times of serious budget cutting in Arizona, its obvious why this was proposed, projected 2010 not withstanding. And I agree it does seem stupid to close a money maker like Lost Dutchman....
And one more document that shows the state is "sweeping" funds away from the gate revenue: http://www.pr.state.az.us/press/2009/PR_12-17-09.html
"$2,302,100 in reductions and sweeps to the Enhancement Fund (gate fees), which is the agency's principle operating budget, will force staff reductions. The resulting loss in revenue will result in a zero balance to begin the next fiscal year (July 2010)." ---> SO THAT'S THE REASON FOR THE CLOSURES....2.3M in 8.5M gate revenue gets sent to the state off the top of the fees.....small wonder for the shock to the state parks....
I know I'm going to stop by Pichaco in May and make the climb one last time to the top before it closes in June!
Seems quite often lately they choose parks that are popular so that there WILL be a public outcry in the hopes of getting more funds.
Provided it provided equal dividends to all shareholders and not only the "appointed" boards.:)Quote:
Frankly, if more of the country was run like a business we just might be better off! <!-- / message -->
I have been part of litigation against the "Private" sector of "Public Private" entities and if anything the "Private" section is protected by virtue of its "close" association with the "Public" sector and consequently is less open to scrutiny under the "Consumer Affairs" legislation than if it were a private company.
Keep Government and the private sector poles apart lest we end up with the worst of both.:(
If you ran parks like a business then Making money would be the primary goal and we all know what that does to nature. The solution is entry fees. Yearly passes. There are now quite well know parks doing this such as glacier national park. Personally I see great advantages to this such as they ability to have a dynamic budget. Plus those actually using the park do the paying. And to some degree we all have been paying the fee in our taxes already. And when we pay those taxes how much of that money gets wasted in bureaucratic waste and inefficiency--20-30-40-50% maybe? Fees would put the money nearly instantly into the hands of those who use it and not go through committees, ear marks, congress, etc.. As our population has swelled from 200 million to 300 million and now heads for 400 million and in twenty five years on to 500 million, just what does anyone expect to happen to the little islands of nature that is all that we have left that we call parks? Loss of freedom and privilege is inevideble. All those people will suck dry the resources we have including money. Abundance and surplus will be a thing of the past. Parks here in Ohio are having the same problems. I know the staff of several quite well, and have personally seen the decline in the last twenty years. Now they have one guy driving around to lock and unlock the gates and rotate his daily stay between them. It used to be each park under their jurisdiction had their own staff full time. The parks that are doing ok are the ones that get their money from fees such as the National refuges deriving it's funds from duck stamps and yearly-daily passes. I don't personally mind paying to get in I just wish it could be done under one fee for everything.
I will be the first to admit I don't know enough about all the aspects of the problem, but turning things over to private enterprise then puts money ahead of everything else--and for me I have just about had it with that type of philosophy in my life. Paying fees is and will be the answer I believe.
Paul
I am disheartened -- and down right angry -- at some of the responses here.
First, the "government should be run like a business" mantra is often a knee-jerk simplistic response that has some plausibility but at the end of the day often rings hollow.
As a government manager, I agree that certain business principles should be utlized. It's kind of stupid that I have to expend $5,000 in manpower to get a $50,000 grant to address inadequate manpower and training. I remember the old days when it would be a long wait for basic supplies and repairs -- at least now if a toner cartridge runs out and we're out of stock we can run to OfficeMax, buy one and get reimbursed.
The "run government like a business" model makes sense when business makes sense but a lot of business today is run worse than government and just where did those businesses turn for help when their own mismanagement was doing them in???????? Many corporations have incredible bureaucracies that are inept and out of touch, often more so than government.
At the end of the day, though, the model fails when you consider that there are different objectives. Business generally exsists to make a profit for the owner(s) and the ancillary "trickle down" and "spinoff" economic benefits are duly noted. But government does a lot of functions for the public good that are not profit based but necessary. Public safety and security, of course, are facing significant local and state level challenges, to be sure, and those priorities must be addressed.
Suggesting that a state or the federal government should just lop off a bunch of unprofitable parks is pure folly.
First, the seminal expession of public policy, the creation of our national parks, was predicated on the legislative intent of being "for the benefit and enjoyment of the people." (And, BTW, that came BEFORE any mention of the wildlife and resources!) There were no taxes or user fees then but there were public-private partnerships.
There are certain things we do as a society that are not based on a profit model but rather "for the benefit and enjoyment of the people." Of course this is not imprimatur for mismanagement and waste. Closing the gates, however, to these parks could be the epitome of mismanagement and waste in addition to being contrary to the benefit and enjoyment of the people.
First, the park board in question here is trying to do what it can because its budget is being cut. In that sense it must deal with a micro situation but the powers that be that imposed the cuts ignored the macro perspective as well as the philosophy that these areas exist for the benefit and enjoyment of the people and were never intended to turn a profit. Once these areas have been preserved we have a duty to support their operation and maintenance. Sure, some things will have to wait for better economic times, but closing the gates could be costly. For example, what about the people who would directly or indirectly lose their jobs? Has the unemploment compensation been included in the calculation? What of the lack of purchasing power from these employees in the community which in turn generates tax revenues (or does not, if they lose purchasing power)? And then the park itself won't be purchasing supplies, commodities and services which not only hampers the economy but further reduces tax collections. And then, should economic times improve, there may be a substantial cost to reopen facilities.
Besides the intangible benefits to society as a whole, the parks DO generate revenue albeit not directly into the park board's budget.
User fees? That's a touchy subject and a Band-Aid approach. As a taxpayer, why should I have to pay to use the facilities that my taxes should be funding? What of people of limited means? This isn't Six Flags or Disney. These parks exist for all of the people and it's a crying shame that we would even think of charging admission fees, period (although I understand the arguments for fees, believe me). There's a reason why the states of North Carolina and Tennessee stipulated in the grant of land for the Great Smoky Mountains National Park that no admission fees would be charged. That happened in the era of the Great Depression. Maybe those mountain folk knew something we should be paying attention to today.
Yes, we have extreme budget issues today, but many of those are the result of mismanagement and the lack of community toward a solution. This nation, though, has been though tough -- even tougher -- times in our history and back then what did we do? We added parks and public facilities for the benefit and enjoyment of the people and to stimulate economic recovery. I am not convinced that FDR's wisdom then would not and should not apply today (and I am a Republican).
.
Are they just going to leave these as natural areas that are still accessible but without amenities? If so, I don't have a problem with it.
