Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission and State Parks Management might need to save some more money; -as a result, the number of sacrificial 'Taxpayers' State Parks to become closed continues to grow just to save money for what? For example, what is the services delivered to the Washington State 'Citizens' and 'Taxpayers' from the operation of Washington State Parks and cost how much money today?1
(content added 13 Mar. 2009)
wwwTVWorg Video Event "The Impact"
Event Date: March 11, 2009 7:00pm, Event Description: State workers head back to the bargaining table w/the governor this week. Given the budget shortfall, what are their priorities – jobs, health benefits? We’ll examine the options and talk w/lawmakers. Also: budget cuts mean up to 40 parks could close.
Just a simple solution -for example, the State of Washington can declare an emergency exists for preservation of government State Parks; as a result, covert all 'Capital ' money to 'Operating' funds and just continue to operate all 121-State Parks as they are now with State Parks operation funded by former 'Capital' dollars, and forget all the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commissions capital projects requested for new, future, and ongoing funding. See next para. Infra.
Washington State is just-a-little short of ‘Taxpayer’ money; so what?
Well, if Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission was really that concerned about spending money because they are just a little short; as a result, State Parks would cut the entire State Parks capital spending that they have requested; for example, see PROPOSED 2009-11 AND 2009 SUPPLEMENTAL CAPITAL APPROPRIATIONS BILL, but no new news about Washington State Parks and Recreation to now suggest not spending many-many-millions of new 'Taxpayers' dollars on things that, shown by current articles written examples, Washington State Parks can not afford the cost-of-complexity for what it permits to become constructed under past capital-money 'Taxpyaers' investments, but now State Parks wants to spend more 'Taxpayers' money for more investment that can’t afford the cost of complexity related to the simple Washington State Park. So, review the capital proposed for spending plan by Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission and determine for yourself is closing many 'Taxpayers' past capital investments into State Parks what this is about for saving necessary money for State of Washington continued operation? Let attempt to understand how spending works within Washington State by taking a review of 2008 Citizen’s Guide to the Washington State Budget 2008, 2 and, the explanation describes Natural Resources 3.8-percent of entire budget, so whilst other spending is larger it receives less attention because just-maybe less visible or any benefit returned to 'Taxpayers' and 'Citizens' for the cost of government complexity services delivery. And, taking a overview look at current operating expenses as defined by Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM), Operating Budgeted Expenditures: State Parks and Recreation Commission (Adobe PDF file) (last visited 12 Mar. 2009), but from this lofty-view of operational spending I can not determine which dollars are really expended within each specific park for that parks benefit related to employees and operating supplies minimum park-open operating expense required; therefore more question about the details of State Parks spending remain un-answered; since the minimum cost to operate each park is not presented in a detail format that sum-up to this operational spending over-view summary operational expense as presented.
Let’s review State Parks news as an article presents: The Olympian and Seattle Times Travel staff, Up to 40 state parks could be closed or transferred, March 6, 2009, ("State Parks has been asked to prepare a 22.9 percent cut for the 2009-11 state budget, Director Rex Derr said during a Thursday night meeting of the state Parks and Recreation Commission in Olympia. The proposed cut represents almost 25 percent of State Parks’ budget. . . .") available at http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/travel/2008822987 _webstateparks06.html and This article comments (last visited 11 Mar. 2009). So, if a 22.9-percent cut might close up to 40-state parks; therefore what does the remaining 77.1-percent buy the 'Taxpayers' from the remaining Washington State Parks expenses? Anybody know where the money goes and is spent for what specific benefits, so please explain the State Parks spending details? 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7
Just maybe, State Parks might be spending some money outside of its simple State Parks mission and fix what we have within these open and operating State Parks. That’s it! But, is it?
Therefore, the question presented to Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission is not which 'Taxpayers' State Parks are to become offered-up for closure, but how much money is spent yesterday, today, and tomorrow on anything that is outside a open, operating, and public accessible listed State Park site? For example, what amount of money is not spent directly into funding of the Washington’s 121 state parks as described within State of Washington, Washington State Parks, Park Information? Seems-to-me we are just a little short of Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission operating budget information because we are only given a small part of the overall State Parks and Recreation Commission spending details, so let’s take a look at who get what money and spends it where other than 'Taxpayers' past capital investments into open and operating Washington State Parks?
Just thinking about what Craig Romano, Mount Vernon, online letters to the editor, State park closures: Casualties of reckless, past spending, March 12, 2009, The Seattle Times Company, ("I am absolutely fed up with how our governors and legislators (former Gov. Gary Locke liquidated a handful of state parks earlier this decade) have consistently shown such a lack of commitment to our state parks. . . ."), available at http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/northwestvo (last visited 13 Mar. 2009) present a good point -for example, for my thinking if the State of Washington Parks and Recreation Commission want to close and abandon past 'Taxpayers' State Park(s) capital investment; therefore the State of Washington should just refund the 'Taxpayers' dollars expended into these proposed to become closed State Park(s) to the Washington State 'Taxpayers' -for example, a ongoing reduction of Washington State sales tax in all counties until the parks investments that have been lost by parks closure is paid back to all Washington State Taxpayers because the 'Taxpayers' have now lost the asset and capital costs that they invested their dollars into yesterday; as a result, this would be a real win-win for both State Parks and Washington 'Taxpayers' they both save some money by State Parks closing parks.
ices/2009/03/12/state_park_closures.html
Endnotes
- See generally, Richard Roesler, Staff writer, State park may be at risk: Officials consider temporary or permanent shutdowns, 5 Mar. 2009, The Spokesman-Review (Spokane and Spokane Valley, WA), ("OLYMPIA – As state park officials wrestle with a budget cut of up to $23 million over the next two years, they’re considering temporarily closing – or permanently getting rid of – dozens of state parks. . . ."), available at
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2009/mar /05/state-park-may-be-at-risk/(last visited 11 Mar. 2009). ↩ - See, State of Washington, 2008 Citizen’s Guide to the Washington State Budget, 2008, (Adobe PDF file), ("The budget that pays for the day-to-day operations of state government (including federal funds and dedicated funds) is called the Operating Budget ($56.8 billion). . . ."), available at
http://www.leg.wa.gov/documents/Senate/SCS/WM/Swm(last visited 12 Mar. 2009). ↩
Website/Publications/BudgetGuides/2008/CGTB2008Rev3.pdf
- See also, THE ASSOCIATED PRESS, Washington could close up to 40 state parks, 6 Mar. 2009, ("TUMWATER, Wash. — People who went to a Parks and Recreation Commission meeting to protest plans to close 13 state parks heard the state may have to close or transfer as many as 40 parks. . . ."), available at
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420ap_wa_ closing_state_parks.html(last visited 11 Mar. 2009). ↩ - See also, Joe Chapman, Herald staff writer, Sacajawea State Park on watch list for closures, 11 Mar. 2009, Tri-City Herald.com, ("No decisions have been made, nor have the parks been ranked in likelihood to be closed. But parks were evaluated according to several objective standards, and according to two of those — annual visitation and revenues generated — Sacajawea State Park scored fourth poorest."), available at
http://www.tri-cityherald.com/901/story/505277.html(last visited 12 Mar. 2009). ↩ - See also, Steve Duda, Washington State Parks Facing Cuts, Closures, 5 Mar. 2009, Washington Trails Association, ("Responding to that direction, State Parks has conducted an exhaustive analysis of existing properties and cost savings that might be realized by taking the above actions. The resulting list includes 33 parks that would be “mothballed,” or temporarily closed. The public could still access the listed parks, but only by foot. Parking areas and restroom facilities would be closed and park staff would either be reassigned or laid off. State Parks would realize roughly $8.4 million in savings should they and the Legislature ultimately agree on this approach. . . ."), available at
http://www.wta.org/trail-news/signpost/washington -state-parks-facing-cuts-closures-2(last visited 12 Mar. 2009). ↩ - See also, John Lang, Executive Director, A Message on State Parks Closures, 11 Mar. 2009, Evergreen Mountain Bike Alliance ((formerly BBTC), ("State Parks has initiated a process to identify up to thirty-three parks in its inventory for temporary closure (mothballing) or transfer to another jurisdiction such as a city or county. Based on early lists, the closures will be widespread throughout the state, impacting a range of user groups. Among the possible closures are specific parks which are dear to the mountain bike community, including St. Edwards, Dash Point and Fort Ebey. . . ."), available at
http://evergreenmtb.org/php/show_page.php?page_id=267(last visited 12 Mar. 2009). ↩ - See also, Allison Arthur of The Leader, Fort Flagler, Fort Casey on new draft list of state parks to mothball, 11 Mar. 2009, The Port Townsend & Jefferson County Leader (Port Townsend, WA), ("With Fort Flagler State Park on a draft list of parks to be mothballed and Old Fort Townsend State Park set to be closed, Jefferson County is asking legislators to find a stable, and quick, funding source for state parks. . . ."), available at
http://www.ptleader.com/main.asp? SectionID=36&SubSectionID=55&ArticleID=23614&TM=43640.07(last visited 12 Mar. 2009). ↩
Tags: capital spend, Citizens, Closing parks, Legislature, money, more park closing, operating budgets, spending, State Parks, Taxpayers, Wash. Leg. Sess. 2009-10, Washington State
That interview with Derr really angers me. It was very dishonest of him to omit the fact that they laid off 14 park rangers last January. The reasoning given was that they needed to make room for the rangers who would be displaced when these parks closed.
They were laid off because of Park Closures, so it would have been completely appropriate to mention it in the interview.
I guess Derr doesn’t want the public to realize that they have laid of rangers before they laid off anyone at headquarters.