Questions about Proposition 21

[phloem]

About Proposition 21:
I haven't read the full text of the ballot measure, as I haven't gotten any literature from my local registrar (!), yet. However, I wonder how the measure stipulates the funding be spent. State Parks has a sorry record of spending its funding equitably for the benefit of the "treasures" this measure's advocates claim will be saved by its passing. My experience suggests that more money will not result in addressing the woefully inadequate allocation of funding for the natural assets that State Parks is mandated to protect.

When State Parks had money to spend (about 10 years ago), very little of it went towards the preservation and conservation of its natural assets. Instead, almost all of State Parks' budget went into development -- sometimes necessary to replace inadequate facilities, but often resulting in damage to wildlife and plant habitats -- and law enforcement. While rangers continue to receive substantial stipends for target practice and ammunition, and new vehicles, and trainings every month, the environmental scientists (the very few that are employed full-time), archaeologists, historians, and natural and cultural resources programs have almost no permanent funding.

Invasive species (e.g., weeds, wild pigs & turkeys, feral cats) have proliferated in state parks, rare species are left without adequate protection from visitor impacts, and State Parks has adopted a strategy of corporate-beholden contracting with private businesses for concessions, essentially selling jobs and State Parks (public) assets to the highest bidders. Trails have become eroded gullies and trees die from disease, yet maintenance and resources budgets are inadequate to handle the levels of public use. Public education and enforcement of State Parks regulations and State laws (dogs off-leash, anyone?) are scant, so visitors don't learn much about appropriate land stewardship and resource protection. How will Proposition 21 address such egregious imbalances of priorities and funding?

State Parks rangers rarely spend any time enforcing pertinent laws and educating the public about human environmental impacts. Many State Parks facilities suffered even when funding was greater (if still insufficient), and budget allocations to "resource" (not a good word to use in the context of conservation) management were and are miniscule compared with the outputs for wannabe cops and their guns. Moreover, in the past few years, law enforcement in State Parks purchased dozens, if not hundreds, of new vehicles, purposefully emblazoned with stars to emphasize the message that they are indeed cops, not rangers. State Parks "rangers" (not the type leading you on a nature walk) also get Homeland Security funding, as somehow the message that a healthy environment might make all of us more secure has been washed away in a current of fear and deception. Yet, in their training programs, State Parks rangers get very little education about cultural and natural resources. In addition, law enforcement officers can retire at 55 with almost 100% of their salaries, while other State Parks employees get far less for retirement benefits. How will Prop. 21 address altering the imbalance between law enforcement and all the other essential jobs and roles necessary to manage public lands? With State Parks functioning as a public arm of corporate America, I'm not sure I want to put more of my income into an agency that has become paramilitary and top-heavy with law enforcement personnel.

I pose these additional questions to Prop. 21 advocates, State Parks and Resources Agency management, and State legislators, how will Prop. 21, or any other increase in funding for State Parks in the future, address the abysmal inequities apparent in prior funding allocations? How can Parks visitors and those who vote in favor of Prop. 21 have any confidence that State Parks will be managed according to its mission statement, instead of turning that mission statement inside out at the behest of the corporate-friendly, law enforcement mentality that runs the Department?

I may yet vote for the measure, because I truly want a better future for the plants and animals and water and soil and indigenous cultures and all the other assets that can yet make this state more livable. But, if State Parks continues to short-change those invaluable natural and cultural assets at the behest of corporate influences and quasi-militarism in management, I will be justifiably radical in my responses to State Parks management. Don't let this ballot measure deceive you -- as voters, we are all responsible for ensuring that, if passed, this proposition fulfills its promise to "save" the publicly held assets that our laws are sworn to protect.

In closing, and for the purpose of full disclosure, I was blacklisted from future employment in the Department for speaking my mind about administrative mismanagement, circumvention of environmental laws, and neglect of natural resources in State Parks.

[Richard Nichols]

Much of the negative comment about the parks dept comes from your bad experience with them. Big bureaucracies tend to get inefficient and insulated, but severe defunding only makes it worse. We can only hope that the new Gov. puts an enviro in charge of natural resources. I think that a steady, reliable stream of funds will revitalize a very damaged agency.

The parks mission is admirable, and we can only hope that new $$ and energy will bring it back. Here is the mission right out of the website:

To provide for the health, inspiration and education of the people of California by helping to preserve the state's extraordinary biological diversity, protecting its most valued natural and cultural resources, and creating opportunities for high-quality outdoor recreation.

I love State and Federal lands. They are my recreation (re-creation) and my inspiration, and I love to walk on our collective, common ground.

Vote YES om 21.

About Proposition 21:
I haven't read the full text of the ballot measure, as I haven't gotten any literature from my local registrar (!), yet. However, I wonder how the measure stipulates the funding be spent. State Parks has a sorry record of spending its funding equitably for the benefit of the "treasures" this measure's advocates claim will be saved by its passing. My experience suggests that more money will not result in addressing the woefully inadequate allocation of funding for the natural assets that State Parks is mandated to protect.

When State Parks had money to spend (about 10 years ago), very little of it went towards the preservation and conservation of its natural assets. Instead, almost all of State Parks' budget went into development -- sometimes necessary to replace inadequate facilities, but often resulting in damage to wildlife and plant habitats -- and law enforcement. While rangers continue to receive substantial stipends for target practice and ammunition, and new vehicles, and trainings every month, the environmental scientists (the very few that are employed full-time), archaeologists, historians, and natural and cultural resources programs have almost no permanent funding.

Invasive species (e.g., weeds, wild pigs & turkeys, feral cats) have proliferated in state parks, rare species are left without adequate protection from visitor impacts, and State Parks has adopted a strategy of corporate-beholden contracting with private businesses for concessions, essentially selling jobs and State Parks (public) assets to the highest bidders. Trails have become eroded gullies and trees die from disease, yet maintenance and resources budgets are inadequate to handle the levels of public use. Public education and enforcement of State Parks regulations and State laws (dogs off-leash, anyone?) are scant, so visitors don't learn much about appropriate land stewardship and resource protection. How will Proposition 21 address such egregious imbalances of priorities and funding?

State Parks rangers rarely spend any time enforcing pertinent laws and educating the public about human environmental impacts. Many State Parks facilities suffered even when funding was greater (if still insufficient), and budget allocations to "resource" (not a good word to use in the context of conservation) management were and are miniscule compared with the outputs for wannabe cops and their guns. Moreover, in the past few years, law enforcement in State Parks purchased dozens, if not hundreds, of new vehicles, purposefully emblazoned with stars to emphasize the message that they are indeed cops, not rangers. State Parks "rangers" (not the type leading you on a nature walk) also get Homeland Security funding, as somehow the message that a healthy environment might make all of us more secure has been washed away in a current of fear and deception. Yet, in their training programs, State Parks rangers get very little education about cultural and natural resources. In addition, law enforcement officers can retire at 55 with almost 100% of their salaries, while other State Parks employees get far less for retirement benefits. How will Prop. 21 address altering the imbalance between law enforcement and all the other essential jobs and roles necessary to manage public lands? With State Parks functioning as a public arm of corporate America, I'm not sure I want to put more of my income into an agency that has become paramilitary and top-heavy with law enforcement personnel.

I pose these additional questions to Prop. 21 advocates, State Parks and Resources Agency management, and State legislators, how will Prop. 21, or any other increase in funding for State Parks in the future, address the abysmal inequities apparent in prior funding allocations? How can Parks visitors and those who vote in favor of Prop. 21 have any confidence that State Parks will be managed according to its mission statement, instead of turning that mission statement inside out at the behest of the corporate-friendly, law enforcement mentality that runs the Department?

I may yet vote for the measure, because I truly want a better future for the plants and animals and water and soil and indigenous cultures and all the other assets that can yet make this state more livable. But, if State Parks continues to short-change those invaluable natural and cultural assets at the behest of corporate influences and quasi-militarism in management, I will be justifiably radical in my responses to State Parks management. Don't let this ballot measure deceive you -- as voters, we are all responsible for ensuring that, if passed, this proposition fulfills its promise to "save" the publicly held assets that our laws are sworn to protect.

In closing, and for the purpose of full disclosure, I was blacklisted from future employment in the Department for speaking my mind about administrative mismanagement, circumvention of environmental laws, and neglect of natural resources in State Parks.

[phloem]

Richard,
No, most of my negative comments do not come from my bad experience, but from the ugly reality, and you are hereby refuted and admonished for taking such a low, lazy road with your comments! You need to talk with more State Parks resource specialists before dismissing my comments, and some of them will undoubtedly have more positive impressions from their experiences. Nevertheless, the Department of Parks and Recreation has not allocated sufficient funding to natural and cultural resource management, choosing instead to prioritize development and law enforcement, and this has gone on for at least two decades.

Unfortunately, you appear to be one of many ill-informed voters on this issue, and we all have a right to know how public funding will be spent. Instead, you chose to whitewash my questions with cheerleading. If you had worked for the agency in my capacity as a steward of public land, you'd understand why I left: continual underfunding of the protection of the "....state's extraordinary biological [and cultural] diversity..." etc., as well as blatant disregard for environmental compliance and prudent administrative fiscal responsibility.

The Department's mission statement has been turned on its head by the law enforcement-heavy administration, with less than 3% of its general funding devoted to
"preservation" of natural and cultural resources.

Again, I share your concern about underfunding State Parks, and I want a much better future for all public lands. But the funding must be designated specifically to address issues pertinent to the mission statement, not to law enforcement (such as traffic tickets and participating in roadside checkpoints) and not to contracts with private concessionaires who make a profit from public lands -- it's illegal, by the way, for state agencies to profit from public land assets, so State Parks is simply defying the spirit of the law by putting the face of corporate America on its mission statement.

You've failed to address any of my questions about how the funding increase will correct the imbalance of past State Parks budget expenditures with factual information, so they stand unanswered, and you've done a disservice to other voters seeking factual information.

Much of the negative comment about the parks dept comes from your bad experience with them. Big bureaucracies tend to get inefficient and insulated, but severe defunding only makes it worse. We can only hope that the new Gov. puts an enviro in charge of natural resources. I think that a steady, reliable stream of funds will revitalize a very damaged agency.

The parks mission is admirable, and we can only hope that new $$ and energy will bring it back. Here is the mission right out of the website:

To provide for the health, inspiration and education of the people of California by helping to preserve the state's extraordinary biological diversity, protecting its most valued natural and cultural resources, and creating opportunities for high-quality outdoor recreation.

I love State and Federal lands. They are my recreation (re-creation) and my inspiration, and I love to walk on our collective, common ground.

Vote YES om 21.

[Richard Nichols]

and you are hereby refuted for not getting the point! YOU said you don't even know what is in the bill. I',m getting off this thread now that I vented. I don't want a pissing match. Just vote fore the bill, yes or no, as you wish.

[Valley Oak]

Reactionaries hate anything that has to do with public monies, period! Republicans and their ilk have always defunded anything government unless it is the military or security agencies such as the CIA, FBI, etc.

The "wet dream" of conservatives, Libertarians, and Tea Party maggots is to privatize EVERYTHING. And in this way eliminating the public space, all public parks, government in general, and last but not least, taxes (except for funding the Armed Forces, of course, which you and I will pay for).

Edward

[Cheingrand]

I hope you took the time to read the full text of the proposition. It was easily found online (https://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/ind...alifornia_2010) and would take less time to read than it took to write your criticism of State Parks. While the proposition failed, Sonoma County was one of nine counties that voted in favor of the proposition.

It is clear that you have personal differences with the administration of California State Parks. It may that as a 'socialist anarchist' (from your profile), you would have personal differences with any government agency.

There is no such thing as a blacklist at California State Parks. If you are unable to secure future employment there, it is likely due to past performance and a restricted, narrow view of the department's mission. While the protection and preservation of the state's natural and cultural resources is critical, park managers must also address the remainder of the mission. Providing high quality outdoor recreation opportunities requires development and maintenance of facilities. Providing for the health, inspiration and education of our citizens requires public safety programs as well as interpretive programs that connect people with their parks and promote stewardship of our parks.

I voted for the proposition and I believe California State Parks is doing a the best job it can in the acquisition, development, preservation and protection of our state's extraordinary natural, cultural, and recreational assets.

About Proposition 21:
I haven't read the full text of the ballot measure, as I haven't gotten any literature from my local registrar (!), yet. However, I wonder how the measure stipulates the funding be spent. State Parks has a sorry record of spending its funding equitably for the benefit of the "treasures" this measure's advocates claim will be saved by its passing. My experience suggests that more money will not result in addressing the woefully inadequate allocation of funding for the natural assets that State Parks is mandated to protect.

When State Parks had money to spend (about 10 years ago), very little of it went towards the preservation and conservation of its natural assets. Instead, almost all of State Parks' budget went into development -- sometimes necessary to replace inadequate facilities, but often resulting in damage to wildlife and plant habitats -- and law enforcement. While rangers continue to receive substantial stipends for target practice and ammunition, and new vehicles, and trainings every month, the environmental scientists (the very few that are employed full-time), archaeologists, historians, and natural and cultural resources programs have almost no permanent funding.

Invasive species (e.g., weeds, wild pigs & turkeys, feral cats) have proliferated in state parks, rare species are left without adequate protection from visitor impacts, and State Parks has adopted a strategy of corporate-beholden contracting with private businesses for concessions, essentially selling jobs and State Parks (public) assets to the highest bidders. Trails have become eroded gullies and trees die from disease, yet maintenance and resources budgets are inadequate to handle the levels of public use. Public education and enforcement of State Parks regulations and State laws (dogs off-leash, anyone?) are scant, so visitors don't learn much about appropriate land stewardship and resource protection. How will Proposition 21 address such egregious imbalances of priorities and funding?

State Parks rangers rarely spend any time enforcing pertinent laws and educating the public about human environmental impacts. Many State Parks facilities suffered even when funding was greater (if still insufficient), and budget allocations to "resource" (not a good word to use in the context of conservation) management were and are miniscule compared with the outputs for wannabe cops and their guns. Moreover, in the past few years, law enforcement in State Parks purchased dozens, if not hundreds, of new vehicles, purposefully emblazoned with stars to emphasize the message that they are indeed cops, not rangers. State Parks "rangers" (not the type leading you on a nature walk) also get Homeland Security funding, as somehow the message that a healthy environment might make all of us more secure has been washed away in a current of fear and deception. Yet, in their training programs, State Parks rangers get very little education about cultural and natural resources. In addition, law enforcement officers can retire at 55 with almost 100% of their salaries, while other State Parks employees get far less for retirement benefits. How will Prop. 21 address altering the imbalance between law enforcement and all the other essential jobs and roles necessary to manage public lands? With State Parks functioning as a public arm of corporate America, I'm not sure I want to put more of my income into an agency that has become paramilitary and top-heavy with law enforcement personnel.

I pose these additional questions to Prop. 21 advocates, State Parks and Resources Agency management, and State legislators, how will Prop. 21, or any other increase in funding for State Parks in the future, address the abysmal inequities apparent in prior funding allocations? How can Parks visitors and those who vote in favor of Prop. 21 have any confidence that State Parks will be managed according to its mission statement, instead of turning that mission statement inside out at the behest of the corporate-friendly, law enforcement mentality that runs the Department?

I may yet vote for the measure, because I truly want a better future for the plants and animals and water and soil and indigenous cultures and all the other assets that can yet make this state more livable. But, if State Parks continues to short-change those invaluable natural and cultural assets at the behest of corporate influences and quasi-militarism in management, I will be justifiably radical in my responses to State Parks management. Don't let this ballot measure deceive you -- as voters, we are all responsible for ensuring that, if passed, this proposition fulfills its promise to "save" the publicly held assets that our laws are sworn to protect.

In closing, and for the purpose of full disclosure, I was blacklisted from future employment in the Department for speaking my mind about administrative mismanagement, circumvention of environmental laws, and neglect of natural resources in State Parks.