July 24, 2009

Compromise Close on CA Parks

It looks like the CA assembly is close to reaching a deal that will close most of their state budget deficit and save MOST of CA state parks from closure. The funding agreement will still result in an approximately $8 million budget shortfall for the park system and it is likely that close to 30 parks may be closed (better than the original 220 proposed for closure but still bad). It is possible that partnerships with local governments, nonprofits and private citizens can help keep some of these parks open.

Posted by dop_editor at 09:12 PM | Comments (0)

July 23, 2009

Friends of Lake Texoma call for referendum on TIF Funding for Pointe Vista Development

For immediate release: Thursday, July 23, 2009

Contacts: Stephen Willis, Friends of Lake Texoma State Park (FLTSP) ( 580) 564-5047
Boyd Steele, President, FLTSP (580) 564-2075
Shannon Meyer, Executive Director, Defense Of Place (970) 963-0629

Marshall County Commissioners Expected to Approve Pointe Vista Tax Relief
Friends of Lake Texoma State Park Sponsoring Public Referendum on Pointe Vista Tax Scheme

(Kingston, OK) -- Marshall County Commissioners may approve the Pointe Vista Tax Increment Financing (TIF) scheme following a public meeting in Kingston tonight, according to reports received by the Friends of Lake Texoma State Park.

The vote is expected to occur regardless of county taxpayers opposition to the proposed $329 million public tax subsidy of virtually all of Pointe Vista's project costs, past and future.

The Tax Increment Financing (TIF) proposal for Pointe Vista Development and Chesapeake Energy CEO Aubrey McClendon, was approved by the Marshall County TIF Review Committee prior to the first of two legally required public meetings.

County TIF Attorney Nate Ellis said the reason they were holding these public hearings after the TIF Committee voted to approve the draft TIF resolution is because the law allowed them to do so. But that did not provide for public comments on the resolution, which also did not include the Increment District Legal Description, or the Project Area Legal Description, Exhibits "B" and "D."

That first meeting was held in Kingston on July 14th. The Marshall County TIF committee decided to approve Pointe Vista's incomplete draft resolution prior to the hearings required by the Oklahoma Local Development Act.

"Attorneys for the Friends of Lake Texoma State Park are preparing a referendum petition on any Marshall County Resolution to approve a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) District for Pointe Vista Development, LLC of Oklahoma City," according to Eldon White, board member of the park advocacy group based in Kingston.

"If the County Commissioners deny us the opportunity to weigh in on the TIF resolution, The Friends will proceed with our public referendum to guarantee that Marshall County voters have the opportunity to have the final word in the matter."

Boyd Steele, President of the Friends group stated, "What we have here is a classic example of Corporate Welfare for the politically well- connected Pointe Vista Development. They, like all corporate special interests, seek to Privatize the Profits, and Socialize the Costs."

"Furthermore, who is going to pay for the police and fire protection services for Pointe Vista during the 25 years until this thing supposedly returns benefits to Marshall County?"

Stephen Willis, Director of the Friends shared, "We represent the public interest. We will insure that the voters and taxpayers of Marshall County have the final word on tax relief for Pointe Vista Development. That's how it's supposed to work in a real democracy."

The Friends of Lake Texoma State Park encourage all concerned citizens, taxpayers and area property owners to attend the meeting in Kingston at 7 PM tonight at the Kingston Elementary School Auditorium. For more information on the Friend's Referendum, call 580-564-7205.

Posted by dop_editor at 09:53 PM | Comments (0)

July 07, 2009

Dont Let Parks Pay the Price for a Bad Economy

Everywhere you look these days local and state governments are facing serious budgetary woes. All too often these governments are looking eagerly at your public green spaces as a source of raising, or saving, green backs. Why should our parks pay the price for economic hard times? Parks provide a place for people to gather, to exercise, play and communicate. Many studies have shown that the existence of a vibrant park system in a community leads to healthier citizens. Parks and trail systems attract both tourists and residents to a community. Park visitors spend money in the surrounding communities and enhance local economies. Yet despite all these obvious benefits of parklands, too often they are first community amenity to feel the pinch during economic hard times.
California is making headlines these days for the Governor’s threats to close 80% of the state’s parks (220 parks) because of the massive budget deficit. Yet, the parks budget amounts to a mere 1/10th of 1 percent of the state’s general fund. Governor Schwarzenegger claims the closures would save $143 million, but against a total deficit of $24.3 this is a drop in the bucket. Shutting the gates of these parks may cause more problems than it would solve. With no rangers patrolling these often large and remote areas, state parks may soon become havens for criminal activity and squatters. When the parks are called back into use, the cost of repairing the environmental and physical damage that is bound to occur may outweigh the supposed savings of closing them. According to a recent report by the California State University of Sacramento, park users spend on average $57.63 per park visit in the surrounding community equaling more than $4.2 billion in positive economic impacts across California that generates $300 million in sales tax revenues. Because of this multiplier effect, every dollar invested in the State Park system actually puts $2.35 into the general fund from sales taxes and jobs. Park closures would devastate local economies that depend on tourism but the idea of closing parks to “save money” is a popular one that is being played out across the nation.
Georgia’s Department of Natural Resources, when faced with a 39% budget reduction, partially closed 17 state parks and historic areas and cut their workforce by 12% even while increasing park entrance fees. In Arizona, a $1.6 billion budget shortfall led to the closure of 8 popular state parks. Last July during the peak summer season New Jersey almost closed 45% of its total park acreage but was able to “save” them with beach protection funds. New Hampshire, the only state that relies entirely on entrance fees to support its park system, is now considering selling or leasing 27 of its underperforming parks. New York state parks will have a shorter season this year in order to save money. Ohio closed its parks for a week for a savings of $190,000. At the local level, the number of cities and towns closing parks, limiting facilities, or looking at privatization is too numerous to detail.
Yet in the face of serious budget deficits some states and municipalities are getting creative about maintaining their park systems. Washington State pays for its parks with a license fee added to car registrations and Michigan is considering a similar system. Santa Clara County CA is considering providing rangers for Henry Coe State Park in order to keep the park open and its benefits alive for the community. Kentucky, which has the third highest revenue generating park system after CA and NY recognizes the financial and societal values of its park system and has vowed to keep parks functioning even with a budget that has to shrink by 10%. A small town in Nebraska decided to take matters into its own hands and lease the nearby state recreational area to keep visitors coming and locals engaged in the outdoors.
Our public parklands are a vital part of our public trust. They are held by our states and municipalities in trust for us and for future generations. It is the current generation’s responsibility to see that this trust is not violated so that our children’s children will have these same resources to enjoy. If we let parklands go now they will be nearly impossible to get back. Close your eyes and imagine your community without its parks – do you like what you see? If not, be a voice for these lands. Join Defense of Place in standing up for parks big and small across the nation.

Posted by dop_editor at 09:11 PM | Comments (0)

June 01, 2009

Man Arrested in OH for Mowing His Neglected Local Park

We have heard so much in the news lately about the budget problems facing parks across the country. From California to Georgia parks are being closed for lack of funding and budgets for park staff and maintenance are being slashed at every level of government. The economic impacts on our parks are just one manifestation of the global economic crisis. The state of our nation's economy is something that impacts everyone but most people feel helpless to doing anything about it.

In Sandusky, OH, a local man decided to do his part to help out his city by mowing his neighborhood park. After watching local children running through the untended, knee-high grass of Central Park to catch the bus, John Hamilton went home to get his lawn mower. When the police appeared a little while later he was shocked to learn that his civic action wasn't appreciated by the city. When he refused to stop mowing the park lawn he was actually arrested, handcuffed and taken away in a police cruiser! For mowing the lawn of a public park that had been neglected by his city! This is how Mr. Hamilton is repaid for stepping up to make his city a better place for children to play.

This is not the message we should be sending to Americans during these hard times. We should instead invoke the famous words of John F. Kennedy and asking what "you can do for your country"? Parks are crucially important to the fabric of our civic society. Parks bring people together in the outdoors, to celebrate physical activity, nature, play and even contemplation. They are truly democratic - open to all regardless of race, age, wealth or physical ability. What better example is there of an involved citizenry in a democracy than a neighbor stepping up to maintain his community's public park when the city lacks the funds to do so. Mr. Hamilton should be receiving the city of Sandusky's thanks - not a court summons.

Posted by dop_editor at 06:06 PM | Comments (1)

May 28, 2009

Stop the closure of 200 CA State Parks!

This week California's Governor Schwarzenneger announced a new proposal that would close over 200 state parks. This proposal to eliminate state funding for California's state park system would lead to the closure of more than 80% of the 279-unit state park system. His proposal to cut $143 million from CA's state parks budget is 10 times worse than last year's proposal. On June 2, the Legislature's Budget Conference Committee will consider this proposal.
It is urgent for State park advocates to make their voices heard NOW. If you are a California resident it is cruical that you contact to your legislators and tell them not to sacrifice state parks. State parks are a huge part of what make's California a beautiful place to live and visit. In these hard economic times people are looking for more affordable vacation options close to home. If this plan is finalized, those families will be faced with locked gates rather than welcoming beaches, campgrounds and hiking trails. It is all to easy for politicians to sell off our public green spaces as a source of greenbacks during hard times. However - once those parks and open spaces are gone they are nearly impossible to buy back. Stand up as a voice for your public trust lands by writing, emailing or calling the Governor's office and your representative in the General Assembly. Alterantively you can sign the California State Parks Foundation's petition protesting this plan.

Posted by dop_editor at 10:02 PM | Comments (0)

May 11, 2009

Erie Golf Course case: Pennsylvania Court backs away from earlier park protection decision

Two Pennsylvania courts have taken very different stances on park protection in the past six months. The first case involved the Fox Chase Cancer Center's attempt to build a new facility in Philadelphia's popular Burlholme Park. In December, Philadelphia Orphan's Court Judge Herron ruled that the public trust doctrine protected the park until such time as it was no longer a viable park. Fox Chase has since appealed this decision.

A month later, a different Pennsylvania court took an opposing view of the public trust doctrine in the "In Re: Erie Golf Course" case. In 2007, the city of Erie tried to sell one of three municipal golf courses that it had closed to save money. The course had operated at a deficit for at least four times in the previous decade and was appraised at $1.8 million. The Lake Erie Region Conservancy and the Committee to Keep Erie golf Course Open argued that the course should be kept open or maintained as a public park.

A deeply divided Commonwealth Court panel ruled 4 to 3 that a municipality may sell dedicated public land if they determine it is no longer fiscally practical to maintain it. If this ruling stands, it would set an extremely dangerous precedent that allows public officials to close parks based soley on budgetary considerations. Given the current funding climate and the number of parks that are facing budget shortfalls - this interpretation of public trust ownership responsiblities could lead to a massive sell off of public trust lands.

Park advocates should be watching these two appeals very closely and should consider filing amicus briefs in support of a strict reading of the public trust doctrine. Contact Defense of Place for more information.

Posted by dop_editor at 08:54 PM | Comments (0)

CA Park Protection Bills approved in Committee

Two California park protection bills mentioned in this blog last week have been approved by the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committee and are now headed to the appropriations committee. These bills protect parkland in California from conversions to non-park uses. Other states would be wise to adopt similar provisions to protect their own parks for the many development proposals and privatization efforts that constantly barrage parks departments across the country. Park activists in other states should contact the CA State Parks Foundation for information on crafting similar legislation.

Senate Bill 679 introduced by Senator Lois Wolk, indicates that lands used as state parks cannot be used for non-park purposes without an act of the Legislature and the provision of substitute lands of equal environmental and fair market value. SB 679 requires that if it is decided that parkland should be put to a different use, then lands of equal environmental and fair market value, and in proximity to state park lands being disrupted or disposed, must be provided as substitutes.

Senate Bill 372 by Senator Christine Kehoe establishes an appropriate process for protecting state parks from projects or proposals that are inconsistent with the use and purposes of the parks. It would make it so that only the Legislature, on the recommendation of the state Park and Recreation Commission, can authorize uses of a state park that are inconsistent with park purposes. Senate Bill 372 is modeled on existing state law that requires review and legislative action prior to alteration of other conservation lands. It is appropriate to vest the State Park and Recreation Commission (Commission) with a role in securing the future of California's state park system as the Commission currently has important responsibilities classifying and naming state parks, approving and amending General Plans, and providing annual reports on the programs, activities, and future needs of the state park system.

Posted by dop_editor at 08:24 PM | Comments (0)

April 30, 2009

Michigan House Bills 4677 and 4678 to fund parks with optional driver's license fees

Testimony by Defense of Place's Michigan Director, LuAnne Kozma, to the Michigan House Great Lakes and Environment Committee, April 30 209 regarding House Bills 4677 and 4678 which would institute an optional driver's license fee to provide funding for the MI parks system.

"Defense of Place is an organization dedicated to ensuring the perpetual protection of parks, open spaces and wildlife refuges. We strongly support the importance of parks for the well being of our communities and our environment. (www.defenseofplace.org) Unfortunately, we have seen too often that starving parks of much needed funding leads to privatization and ultimately the sale of parkland.

On the surface, the plan to fund parks with an optional driver’s license fee seems reasonable but there are some fundamental flaws with this approach that raise concern for the long-term viability of the park system. The proposed fee is not an actual user fee – which is both part of its appeal and its downfall. Attaching a fee to a targeted group of Michigan citizens will likely have the opposite effect of what the bills’ supporters intend—in the long run it will undermine public support for public parks. As people adjust to the proposed fee structure, they will no longer recognize that access to parks is a right of all citizens and will feel that they are the responsibility only of those who have taken on the burden of paying for them.

The State of Michigan must recognize its essential governmental role and obligation to perpetually support Michigan’s state parks. This has been true during other bad economic times and it is true today. When a group of Michiganders is asked to volunteer to privately donate to fund the parks, it puts into question the true public nature of the park system.

All of Michigan’s state parks belong to all of the people, for all time. Generations before us understood that commitment when they acquired and designated these lands as public parks, sometimes at great expense and sacrifice to themselves. The act of creating a park is a pact with future generations. It’s up to all of us to reaffirm that commitment as a State and not require that of only a subset of our citizens.

Putting the entire burden of supporting the park system on a smaller group of Michigan citizens is a step on the path to privatization. This type of “opt out” fee attached to driver’s licenses has neither been tested by the courts nor proved to be successful over time in other states. Instead of pursuing this relatively unproven system, Michigan should look to other states like Missouri whose sales-tax supported system has proved successful over a longer period. If this funding plan fails, what is the public to think next? If owners of some Michigan vehicles fail to privately donate enough money to the state park system, what will the fate of our park system be then?

Privatization forces are vocal and will not stop calling for greater privatization of Michigan parks. The path to privatization often follows the same pattern: supporters of privatization distrust government’s ability to carry out important public services like parks maintenance, they call for private takeover of these services, while at the same time pushing for decreases in parks budgets, insisting that parks should “pay for themselves,” and when that fails the obvious solution to them is private ownership. The State has already gone partly down this road and resorted to the sale of state parkland, such as at Bald Mountain and Proud Lake State Recreation Areas.

I want to commend you for your efforts to find adequate funding for Michigan’s park system. However, I must encourage you to look further for a more equitable long term funding solution. We must find a way to fund our state park system with public dollars from all the people of the state. Keep the park system firmly in the public trust."

Posted by dop_editor at 07:07 PM | Comments (0)

April 27, 2009

Conservation Easement Defense page

We have just updated the Defense of Place website with a page of useful information on conservation easement defense. This page discusses the growing trend of challenges to conservation easements and how Defense of Place will work to defend conservation easements nationwide.

Posted by dop_editor at 08:04 PM | Comments (0)

Park protection bills in California need our support

California, often a leader in environmental actions and policies, is considering two bills that would strengthen the CA State Park System. State senate bills SB 372 and SB 679 would together make it much more difficult to take land out of the state park system. The bills require that modifications to or alterations of the park system that are inconsistent with park purposes may only happen if recommended by the State Park and Recreation Commission and voted on by the Legislature. If such a modification is approved, the parkland may only be used for this nonpark purpose if replacement lands of greater or equal value and recreational utility are provided. The proposed legislation would only apply to lands given into the park system after January 1, 2010.

If you are a resident of California, I urge you to contact your state Senator and ask them to support these two important park protection bills. For more information visit the CA state legislature's website for bill text (SB 372) and (SB 679) and for analyses of SB 372 and SB 679. For a sample letter to your Senator visit the Surfrider blog.

Posted by dop_editor at 07:33 PM | Comments (0)