The Park Terminator

News & Analysis
In the News Gristmill Blog Muckraker Podcast Features

Columns
Ask Umbra Victual Reality Weekly Recipes The Bottom Line From A to Green The Grist List

Support nonprofit, independent environmental journalism.
Donate to Grist.

ADVERTISING POLICY

[Advanced]

Tools: print | email | write to the editor | subscribe | RSS

Schwarzenegger proposes closing some California parks

Posted at 4:04 PM on 11 Jan 2008

As part of a plan to slim down the state budget, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed to close 48 state parks -- and nature lovers are none too happy.

ADVERTISING POLICY

< Previous | Next >

Comments: (10 comments)

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have a Gristmill account, log in below. If you don't have a Gristmill account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

I'm Happy

Closing parks to humans would be great for wildlife and the parks themselves. There are far too many people and we are everywhere. What about giving other species and the land, air, and water a break for a change?

by Wolverine at 7:21 PM on 11 Jan 2008

Nat'l parks are important

The more parks that are open and accessible to the public, the more people will respect nature and want to help sustain it. If all people see everyday is their urban surroundings, they can never develop an appreciation for the beauty and necessity of natural places. Besides, even if the parks are closed, there will still be a human presence in them to patrol and maintain, the public just won't be allowed in.

by chazzaw at 10:52 AM on 12 Jan 2008

Chazzaw Is Correct ...

that humans who only see artificial urban areas have, in general, no appreciation or respect for nature. However, that fact does not negate the one that humans need to remove themselves from vast areas of land, so that others can thrive there. Humans are grossly overpopulated and modern ones don't interact anywhere near naturally with the environment, even when "just" camping and hiking. Even if a tiny number of people are left to patrol and maintain the parks, which is not certain or clear, there would still be far fewer humans around to cause ecological problems. So we'll just have to find another way to get urbanites acquainted with nature, but it would be great to have these areas closed to the public.

by Wolverine at 11:59 AM on 12 Jan 2008

n

They could charge admission, couldn't they?

by Nucbuddy at 12:20 PM on 12 Jan 2008

Neighborhoods have become Parks

Parks are the bygone technology of the super dense urban center.

New suburban communities have more greenery right where people live.

Cars transport people between specialized islands of living: gym, school, mall.

This is the 21st Century, not London, 1848.

by jabailo at 12:46 PM on 12 Jan 2008

Just so long as...

...the term "closed" doesn't mean turn over to development (which the article seems to indicate wouldn't happen), then I can understand his position.

Parks take alot of money to maintain, and he wants to try and secure more funds and possibly increase fees to the parks. By threatenin' to close some down to the general public, he hopes the state government will react to the negative publicity by increasin' funds, which would be good in the long term.

And just a minor note to chazzaw, these would be state parks, not national parks, that would be effected. National parks get funded mostly by the federal government. State parks are (unfortunately) more susceptible to the financial whims and difficulties of the individual states.

by Tasermons Partner at 2:00 PM on 12 Jan 2008

thanks for the factoid tasermons

I do agree with the fact that eliminating human presence in California parks would undoubtedly allow them to flourish more naturally, but it would still be a sore loss. I live about 5 miles from one of the proposed closures - Torrey Pines State Reserve - and would be very sad not to be able to hike in the park anymore. It provides a nearby access to nature and some beautiful views of the ocean. There's also an historic lodge within the confines of the park that's fun to visit and has a lot of great information. A lot of locals hike and bike regularly in the park in a safe environment. I would definitely agree with a closure of the park to vehicles, which I think is a good practice anywhere, but to close it down to visitors completely would be unfortunate. But, maybe if this proposal just means that people will have to pay to enter these various parks, the people that are willing to spend a little will appreciate the park more and no matter what, the health of the park will improve.

by chazzaw at 8:33 PM on 12 Jan 2008

Well,...

...the parks slated for closure to the general public are supposed to be the ones that (proportionately) make the least amount of income and have the least amount of visitors.

One way to have 'em reconsider the closures would be to sign petitions, and hold funding drives/fundraisers to help support the individual parks. If enough funds can be raised to cover the maintenance costs, then perhaps some of the parks could stay open until more permanent means of funding could be established.

by Tasermons Partner at 9:56 PM on 12 Jan 2008

On The Other Hand

The state could raise taxes to make up for the budget cuts in education, aid for the poor and the environment.

The housing crisis is not likely to get better any time soon, which means falling revenues for some time to come. You either ask for more money or do without.

At one time polls in California showed that voters were willing to pay higher taxes for better schools, but politicians were too afraid of being called "tax raisers" to follow up.

It's hard to see how the state will get anywhere on dealing with global warming under such circumstances.

patrick in Beijing

by bookerly at 4:43 PM on 13 Jan 2008

not so

I also live 5 miles from Torrey Pines State Reserve, and I'm relieved to see that it is not on the closure list:

http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/BudgetSummary/ImagePages/FG-RES ...

by danallen at 12:56 PM on 14 Jan 2008
[ Parent ]

The comments of Grist users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?