« Man Arrested in OH for Mowing His Neglected Local Park | Main | Friends of Lake Texoma call for referendum on TIF Funding for Pointe Vista Development »

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 July 7, 2009 09:11 PM

Comments

Post a comment