Prop 21, State Parks Initiative, Something to care about. (Los Angeles, Fresno: squatters, home)

[humboldtrat]

I vote NO. There is no guarentee that this money will go to parks. It will all go to Sacramento and end up being used for many other things that the politicians consider more important than parks and the parks will still remain in poor condition. Let the users pay at the front gate when they go to a park - just like when you pay to get into a movie or sporting event.

[paulanwonderland]

By law, money in the fund generated by Prop. 21 cannot be used for anything other than state parks, and wildlife conservation (a smaller percentage). The great thing about Prop. 21 is that it takes the funding of the parks away from the legislators in Sacramento who have failed the parks system for the last 30 years by underfunding them.

Even though not everyone goes to state parks, beaches and historical sites, every Californian benefits from them. The parks attract tourists who spend $4.32 billion annually in park-related expenditures. State parks are integral to the economy, which is why so many businesses and business groups are behind Prop. 21.

VOTE YES ON PROP. 21!

[Mellowmike]

I'll definitely be voting yes on 21. It's well worth an additional fee on our vehicles.

[Lovehound]

Originally Posted by Highnlite

Logical disconnect here, who owns these commercial vehicles, trailers and trailer coaches, if not private citizens?

Corporations.

[Bulldogdad]

When the state stops building 500 million dollar high schools and cuts the bloated state pension plan I'll vote for it . Other wise charge per visit or let them go feral.

[Mellowmike]

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.
When these parks are closed, due to lack of funding, that community feels the brunt of the closure. Restaurants, motels, gift shops, etc, count on tourism dollars.
I wonder how many of these "conservatives" who are opposed to any increase in taxes will screaming "don't shut the parks in my district".

[Highnlite]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Highnlite
Logical disconnect here, who owns these commercial vehicles, trailers and trailer coaches, if not private citizens?

Corporations.

No, I own two pickups, one is registered normally, one is registered commercial. I own three trailers, .Thousands of individuals if not millions, own trailer coaches and trailers, if not millions

I think you are complaining without understanding.

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.
When these parks are closed, due to lack of funding, that community feels the brunt of the closure. Restaurants, motels, gift shops, etc, count on tourism dollars.
I wonder how many of these "conservatives" who are opposed to any increase in taxes will screaming "don't shut the parks in my district"

Exactly right, SLO county is considered a red county, but state parks in the county bring in hundreds of millions in tax revenue that would have to be made up somewhere if people like Lovehound got their way.

[ZhugeLiang]

Originally Posted by Lovehound

I did, but I'm wondering why I bothered.

It's not my fault that your reading comprehension is terrible.

[humboldtrat]

Originally Posted by paulanwonderland

By law, money in the fund generated by Prop. 21 cannot be used for anything other than state parks, and wildlife conservation (a smaller percentage).

Ya right! Next thing you're going to tell me is that gas taxes go only for road work and transportation. Dream on!

[Highnlite]

Ya right! Next thing you're going to tell me is that gas taxes go only for road work and transportation. Dream on!

Read the prop.