Defense of Place News Updates: May 2009 Archives

« April 2009 | Main | June 2009 »

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 2009 \| Main \| June 2009 » 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)

	Home \| What's New \| Who We Are \| Why Defense of Place \| How We Work \| Press Room \| Take Action \| Tools Join Our Email List: \| Donate