Prop 21, State Parks Initiative, Something to care about. (vehicle registration, income)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Isn't it ironic that the majority of state parks are located in rural areas.
Generally, rural areas are represented by conservatives who are opposed to any tax increases
The vast majority of state parks are along the coast.
For example, the Central Valley (Redding to Bakersfield) and Sierra foothills only have 5% of the state park lands (either preservation areas or recreation areas). Even the Sierras are largely void of state parks (national parks and national forests but not state park lands) except around Tahoe.
One of the concerns I've heard from some people in this area is that the tax money would not be used to put state parks in the inland areas where they would be easier to access. Locals want more recreational areas closer to home.
The state wants to preserve riverlands like along the San Joaquin, Sacramento and Kings Rivers; purchase Native American archeological sites like Rocky Hill near Exeter with its rock art; and purchase Central Valley grasslands/wildlife refuges that would preserve what is left of what John Muir described in 1868 as "The valley of the San Joaquin is the floweriest piece of world I ever walked, one vast level, even flower-bed, a sheet of flowers, a smooth sea ruffled a little by the tree fringing of the river and here and there of smaller cross streams from the mountains."
Unfortunately there are people concerned that California politics would see the money simply end up spent close to the Bay Area and Los Angeles/Orange Counties and not in the rest of the state for projects like these.
The vast majority of state parks are along the coast.
For example, the Central Valley (Redding to Bakersfield) and Sierra foothills only have 5% of the state park lands (either preservation areas or recreation areas). Even the Sierras are largely void of state parks (national parks and national forests but not state park lands) except around Tahoe.
One of the concerns I've heard from some people in this area is that the tax money would not be used to put state parks in the inland areas where they would be easier to access. Locals want more recreational areas closer to home.
The state wants to preserve riverlands like along the San Joaquin, Sacramento and Kings Rivers; purchase Native American archeological sites like Rocky Hill near Exeter with its rock art; and purchase Central Valley grasslands/wildlife refuges that would preserve what is left of what John Muir described in 1868 as "The valley of the San Joaquin is the floweriest piece of world I ever walked, one vast level, even flower-bed, a sheet of flowers, a smooth sea ruffled a little by the tree fringing of the river and here and there of smaller cross streams from the mountains."
Unfortunately there are people concerned that California politics would see the money simply end up spent close to the Bay Area and Los Angeles/Orange Counties and not in the rest of the state for projects like these.
How can the state possibly create more parks when they lack revenue to maintain the parks they have now? I too would like to see more parks in the central valley. This is just one more reason to support the bill.
I don't buy into what "some people say" about what the legislation would lead to. Some people say the earth is flat, and if I lived in Kansas, I would probably feel the same way. The way I see it is the best thing to do is read the bill. If you're still opposed to it, then fine, at least you read it rather than listen to what someone else said.
In the meantime, this is the best thing we have going right now to save the parks. It may not be perfect, but it's better than nothing.
If someone can come up with a better solution, then present it.
Remember though, when it comes to the parks, if they're not maintained, then they will be lost, forever.
Stop the car tax - NO on 21 The politicians plan to take money from the state park system budget but make it up with money if Prop 21 passes (read the website). In other words, there would be no net gain in the park budget. I think they call this a shell game. Don't have so much faith in government, they will always jerk you around.
But for those of you who want more money spent on state parks, you can make out a check to Sacramento or to the California State Parks Foundation California State Parks Foundation - Your Voice for Parks Oh, but wait, you were expecting someone else to pay for the parks.
No more damn taxes. NO! NO! NO! I don't care what they're for... just because it's written in a prop does NOT guarantee they will go to that purpose. I think the legislature has demonstrated that already.
No more damn taxes. NO! NO! NO! I don't care what they're for... just because it's written in a prop does NOT guarantee they will go to that purpose. I think the legislature has demonstrated that already.
NO! FREAKING NO!!
Using your analysis, we would still be driving on dirt roads.
How to you propose we fund the parks?
Would you prefer we not have any state parks?
Remember though, that these parks also generate revenue for the community they're located in.
Using your analysis, we would still be driving on dirt roads.
How to you propose we fund the parks?
Would you prefer we not have any state parks?
Remember though, that these parks also generate revenue for the community they're located in.
Oh cut the crap. I think we've seen how the legislature uses taxes collected for roads used. It goes somewhere else. I refuse to pay more taxes when it doesn't go toward it's intended use. And if you believe that will happen, they you're just naive.
funding the parks... usage fee when you enter, increase it. Keep the current tax level going to the parks, don't increase it. Remember, we're broke.
Who said anything about not having any state parks. You sure read a lot of what's not there. If some have to close, tough.
At this stage of the game, increasing our tax obligations make them more like resource suckers.
Oh cut the crap. I think we've seen how the legislature uses taxes collected for roads used. It goes somewhere else. I refuse to pay more taxes when it doesn't go toward it's intended use. And if you believe that will happen, they you're just naive.
funding the parks... usage fee when you enter, increase it. Keep the current tax level going to the parks, don't increase it. Remember, we're broke.
Who said anything about not having any state parks. You sure read a lot of what's not there. If some have to close, tough.
At this stage of the game, increasing our tax obligations make them more like resource suckers.
NO MORE G-DAMN TAXES.
Usage fee hasn't been a big success at maintaining the parks so far, so why do you think raising the entrance fee would be any better? It would have the opposite effect, in that there would be a decline in visitors. It would also have a negative effect to the community.
Actually, as for road maintenance, tax dollars are being used for that purpose. The problem is tax dollars have not been able to keep up with the cost of inflation. If you can provide proof that money intended for road maintenance is being spent elsewhere, show it.
If you don't fund the parks, they will fall into a further state of disrepair as well as being an attraction for squatters and vandals. In turn, nobody will use them and if the state could legally do so, they would sell off the property. There are those in the business community who would love to harvest the giant redwoods.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
