This state is getting $225 million on stimulus funds from Obama et al... Most will go to the military to monitor power usage, build docks, improve water distribution systems and build training facilities. Amtrack, which should be self funded but never has been, will get $35 million and Public housing will get $40 million. It seems to me there should be a few million somewhare to keep the parks open, save the jobs there and provide continued low cost enjoyment for local residents who are not going to be traveling as much on vacations and days off. Oh, I forget... there are more votes available in the military, train transportation and low income housing than there are in a few picknickers and fishermen.
Unfortunately, with budgets proposed by the senate and house that call for nearly a billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) in cuts to education, it's hard to make a case for keeping all of our parks open. I'd like to see our parks kept open too, but I would much rather make sure we are able to maintain our educational system; our future depends on it in a way that almost nothing else provided by the state does.
i my self attend school on a regular basis and we all get enough education and not as much beach access if they really wanted to pay more for education then they would stop building new schools! lynnwood high school is being built much bigger then the old one and they are gonna build a new alderwood middle school in the next couple of years if the really wanted a better education then they should spend that money on text books and what not instead of new buildings. and it would be a lot cheaper so they could still keep the parks open. arthur
I really value education -- I paid for my own education at the University of Oregon and I'm currently paying for my daughter's education at Portland State University. I've also been an education reporter for a good chunk of my journalism career -- from 1993 through 1998. I've also voted for every education levy and bond that appeared on my ballot. Yet, this is not pitting schools vs. parks. The budgets call for an opt-out box on vehicle license tab renewal forms. You would have to check a box to NOT pay an additional $5 a year, which would go to parks. Budget writers estimate that parks would not have to close any parks if 40 percent of people renewing their licenses don't check the box. Yeah, this sounds complicated and weird, but $5 a year to keep parks open is a bargain. It's less than 2 cents a day. I donated $20 to the state parks foundation on Monday to walk the talk. Parks are a place for all of us to enjoy the outdoors, and they are portals to Puget Sound beaches.
Left or right, it really doesn't matter. What we need to do is get recreational funds of every kind removed from the General Fund, the great black hole full of money that our lawmakers love to wallow around in and spend. If we would get all recreational funds targeted to recreation (fishing, hunting, state parks, trails, boating, etc.), most of these problems would be eliminated. Just my 2-cents. Les
sucks think Les hit the nail on the head If you need a liscense to pick seaweed (and you do now) seems like the money should go to promote seaweed growth
This is a terrible, obnoxious situation -- the very idea that we have to fight so hard to preserve public access to Puget Sound fisheries makes me mad. That said, checking that license tabs box this year or donating $5 or so to the Washington State Parks Foundation and calling the Legislature is something we've just gotta do. I babble on in more detail about all this on my blog. Thanks for listening.
I hate to blame this all on the right wingers. The spending on the way up and now the cuts on the way down is a democratic show in this state, 100%. I was listening to the Dave Ross show the other day and he thinks it's a political ploy to have an income tax. I think he supports that and I think he is right. He interviewed a state senetor from Medina and asked what the Republicans wanted to cut. The senetor said the cuts were put together in closed door meetings. Not good. Dave asked a senetor from Spokane how he would expain these cuts when this new budget with all its cuts was still 2 billion more than the budget just two years ago. The answer was higher health care costs. It looks like politics is alive and well here. :beathead:
Welllll....ya just might wanna think about that one for awhile, Marty............ How much parking do you think will be available on neighborhood streets or other public streets, roads & hiways ajacent to the parks? How about old geezers like "yours truly" (me) that can't walk very far anymore? How about disabled folks that maybe can't "walk" anywhere anymore but can currently enjoy many of the parks from their walkers, crutches, canes, one-legged scooters & wheelchairs? Oh yeah, and then there's that pesky old problem of, "Who & what the hell were the parks created for in the first place?" Oh, I know....we should all just use public transportation, right? I think this is an issue that is worthy of more serious consideration on your part Marty! I've read your other posts on various topics and usually find no fault with your opinions - you're entitled to them! ....but then perhaps I'm wrong, maybe it was just a "tongue 'n cheek" remark designed to elicit a response! Jc:hmmm:
Chester, I commend you for walking the talk. I don't think it's fair to put the burden on the motorists to keep the parks afloat. I think the opt-out is a cowardly option from the legislature to raise funds. Put a vote to the people or have all users pay an entrance fee similar (method, not amount) to how the National Parks do it.
Well, parking and walking in is a pretty tough option, as many of these parks have little or no parking outside of their boundaries -- and the walk in can be a very long one. I'm sure these factors won't stop the drug dealers, meth-brewers and vandals who are always attracted to open space that doesn't see daily patrols or much public use. I don't want to have to carry a Browning Hi-Power when I go to a state park -- albeit a closed one -- to fish. I also wonder where all the kids will go to be outdoors -- especially in this horrible economy -- if the parks close. I sure wouldn't drop my kid off at a locked, closed gate for the day.
I think that you guys have missed the bigger picture. This is not about budgets. First it's plead poverty, then it's other excuses, but in the final analysis, it's turn the parks over to the tribes. They want the land back and our elected officials are only too happy to give it to them. We went through this several years back with the Old Man House State Park on Agate Passage. The State pleaded poverty ( but it only cost abot $5K per year to maintain but a "Friends of the Park' solution wasn't acceptable). Then they said it was surplus and Gary Locke paid off some political debts to the Suquamish Tribe and the Parks Commission ratified it. I was skeptical at first that the Suquamish would close it off to the public, but I have to say that they have done a pretty good job of maintaining the facilities and access. I think that you need to look at the bright side and say, the State has done a ****poor job of managing the resources and the parks and maybe it is time to turn it back to the Tribes. They have the money from casino revenue ( another political payback) to maintain the facilities ( albeit you have to put up some minor incoveniences like canoe journeys, etc). We spend trillions trying to fight tribalism around the world, but it is subsidized and encouraged at home. Just look at what the Quinaults have done with wild steelhead enhancement on the Queets while the State has screwed up the Hoh. It really doesn't matter who is in control, they all pay homage to the campaign contribution and the end result is that the Tribes will end up with our parklands. It could be worse, at least there is still access to the beach at Old Man House Park. Gary
I tend to be in Edward Abbey's court - parks are for people - not people and their machines. As Abbey pointed out we can drastically increase the size of our parks if we eliminate vehicular traffic - that what was once a 10 minute drive where we are locked in our cars is now a pleasant hour long walk. I guess it depends on what you want from parks, and from your outdoor experience.
I would rather see them reduce time in the parks, reduce staffing time etc, than completwely close the parks. Isnt it demoralizing enough that we are suffering reductions and losses to health care programs, counselling and supervision for at risk youth, preventive programs, child care and intervention, drug and alcohol programs etc? For some people the parks are all that they have for a safe place to spend a few hours or all day with the kids. Back when they charged the mandatory $5 fee the attendance in parks crashed. That is an aspect of the poor using the parks more than anyone else. And for some people- like lower income and the unemployed, single parents, the elderly and handicapped etc, the parks are all they have.
This all or nothing approach serves to purposes. 1. To scare the hell out of you so you will vote yes in November on an new tax plan. 2. To make sure they don't have to change the way they run the business. Don't ask me to change. My part of this runs perfectly just the way it is.
I call for a recount...Bob Triggs for Governor. The closure of parks will really derail much of the time I spend with my family, we use most of the Kitsap area parks regularly and visit others from time to time.
Whatever they "decide", we should continue to use our state and county parks. I'll hike around whatever barriers and signs they put up and fish like always. I think it's safe to assume that park rangers and patrol officers will also be budget cuts, so I'll add reporting crime to my fishing duties (cell phone). I'll also carry garbage bags and collect trash on my way out and transport it to the dump.
