Leaked memo: California could face major lawsuits if Schwarzenegger closes state parks

[Kadie]

Leaked memo: California could face major lawsuits if Schwarzenegger closes state parks
By Paul Rogers
[e-mail]
Posted: 09/17/2009 08:25:43 PM PDT
Updated: 09/17/2009 10:48:11 PM PDT

California taxpayers could be on the hook for millions of dollars in damages if the Schwarzenegger administration moves ahead with plans to close as many as 100 state parks, according to an internal memo drafted by the state parks department's attorneys.

"It is likely that state parks would be liable for breach of contract" with the 188 agreements the state has signed with private companies that provide concession services, from restaurants to boat rentals to gift shops in parks, the memo concluded.

Those concessions generated $89 million in gross sales last year.

Further, if people enter closed parks and are injured or start fires, the state "can be held responsible for dangerous conditions," the attorneys added, even if the parkgoers were trespassing.

The memo, which was written earlier this month for state parks director Ruth Coleman and distributed to high-level parks managers, was leaked and obtained by a Sacramento-based environmental group, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which has posted it on its Web site.

more...
http://www.contracostatimes.com/alamedajournal/ci_13361538

[ddeclue]

1. VE MOST TEHMANATE THEIR CONTRACTS!

DA PAWKS WILL BE BACK!

:rofl:

[ixion]

2. how do you like that privatizing now, ahnold?

still a big fan? :dunce:

[Cleita]

3. Maybe if the parks hadn't contracted out to the private concessionaires

that $89 million could have helped solve our budget problems. I don't know if the feds take all the money they make and put it in the general fund, but it seems the state parks could have generated some revenue that seems to go to private concessionaires instead. Just a thought. I'm not sure how the state system works, but it seems the people of California should be seeing the money, not private industry.

[Luminous Animal]

7. Part of that 89 million is returned to state coffers.

The park system actually turns a profit.

[Cleita]

8. So which "part" does the state get? n/t

[Luminous Animal]

9. I'm not sure. Though I do know that our state parks

post a positive net return. For this reason, I believe, that this move to close our parks isn't about saving the state money, it is about "disaster capitalism" and opening up the door towards selling off either resources in our public lands or selling them off outright.

There is quite a bit of private enterprise in state parks that was in existence before the land became a park. Hotels, stores, private camps sites, restaurants, road side attractions, were allowed to stay in business and stay in private hands after the state acquired the land from private land owners.

[Retrograde]

19. I must be going to the wrong parks

Concessions? Gift shops? Most of the CA state parks I go to are lucky if they have paved parking areas and porto-potties. I'm trying to think of one that has any sort of concession - Big Basin? Cowell? Mt. Tam maybe. Mt. Diablo? Henry Coe? China Camp? The state beaches in San Mateo are pretty spartan.

Unless vending machine = concession

[zbdent]

4. $89 million?

Wasn't that what Ahnold took in on the Arnold for Governator Campaign commercial fundraising, er, I mean, Terminator 3?

[pscot]

5. Yeah. Where will all those retirees

in their motor homes go. Walmart parking lots don't have the amenities.

[Luminous Animal]

6. ????

Do you mean you are FOR closing our state parks? Which, by the way, bring in a net gain.

[Cleita]

13. Retirees don't live in public parks. They are actually too expensive for

monthly rental and usually they ask you to leave after two weeks anyway. Most live in private RV parks.

[Garbo 2004]

15. Neither does Sutter's Fort, the Governor's Mansion and a number of sites in the state parks system

that were proposed for closing.

[truedelphi]

10. In all fairness to Ahnold, the state faces a 25 or 26 billion dollar deficit

And Ahnold did his duty - he went hat in hand and asked Tim Geithner if we couldn't have some Bailout monies.

Now even though this 26 billion is one half of one percent of the amount spent to date for various Bernanke/Geithner concoctions, Geithner said "no!" So now the school teachers, police people, fire fighters, project managers, social workers and small business people affected can just apply for the "Shovel Ready" projects detailed in Obama's "Stim Package" So what if you are in your fifties and don't really know how to operate road paving equipment. Also, never mind that some counties don't have a single dollar coming to them via that "Stim" bill.

And never mind that this state only gets about 76 cents for every $ 1 spent and sent to Washington DC via the Corporate taxation and Income Taxation of the people in this state. Never mind that California has been a huge economic engine, that has generated great gains for everyone.

The Federal government has left California to rot. And maybe come around will be fair play. What if on April 15th, the few left working in this state decide not to offer their taxes to this unresponsive government. Why should we get screwed, while knowing that the Goldman Sachs' Administration, oops, oops I meant the Obama Administration needs our tax dollars!

[Luminous Animal]

11. It was a bonehead move given that for every dollar spent on managing

the system, California get $2.35 back in fees and taxes. This isn't about saving money. It's about privatization of our public assets.

[Cleita]

12. He didn't do what he needed to do, which Warren Buffett had advised

him to do and that was to tax the glut of rich people who are still in California not paying their fair share especially in property taxes. We are still the seventh largest economy in the world, a fact that points to a lot of tax revenue to be had. That would fix a lot. I hope, if Jerry Brown becomes governor that he does it. He did leave the state with a surplus the last time he was governor.

[truedelphi]

16. Unfortunately if you tax the rich people, many of them will simply

Move. The quality of life, which was one of the reasons people originally moved to California, is no longer in existence in most places in California. The rich already go up to Oregon to buy things minus the state tax on sales there. Or they buy things while on cruises.

When a hospice patient of mine has died, and Iam watching the estates of the marginally well off (Two to three million bucks in assests) settle, what I see is that the kids often move to Nevada with their inheritance. Even if they own a home here and are protected by Prop 13. But in Nevada, Carson City or wherever, they don't worry about gnags in the streets and schools.

More community centered lifestyle is a draw as well.

[Cleita]

17. So let them move.

They still have to sell their properties to move or keep paying taxes. I don't think we will run out of rich people for a long time in California no matter how much we tax them. I don't care if they avoid sales taxes. We shouldn't have sales tax either because it's a regressive tax that is burden on the poor. One of the reasons they have no sales tax in Oregon is because they have property taxes that make up for it. As for people moving to Nevada. That's over. My doctor's practice is getting noticeably new patients relocating from Las Vegas, once a mecca for those who don't want to pay taxes because the economy is tanking there. Fewer and fewer people have the bucks to vacation there anymore so many are losing their jobs.

[REP]

14. Our parks MAKE more money than they cost!!

I'm using AAA as my source, but I think they can be trusted.

Big Basin is on the list, which is one of my favorite places. So my reasons for being against the closings are a tiny bit selfish, but it still makes zero financial sense.

[truedelphi]

18. I seemed to remember that as being the case.

In the good old days, WIllie Brown would have gotten on board and taken the Governor to task on this.