I worked for California State Parks for over 30 years, as a seasonal and as a Ranger in several parks. Over those years, State Park budgets and staffing were cut more and more. Since I retired in 2003, conditions have become worse than ever. This surcharge will dedicate a funding source for our parks.

Proposition 21 will create a stable adequate fund source for our 278 California State Parks, some of the most magnificent places in the USA. In exchange for an $18 surcharge on passenger vehicles, Californians will receive free day use in all 278 state parks all year! The surcharge would be paid with your annual DMV fees into a special Trust Fund. The Trust Fund will only be spent for state parks and wildlife conservation and cannot be used for other things, and cannot be taken away by the Governor or legislature. A state-wide economic boost is anticipated from more Californians enjoying their parks without paying day use fees, and staying longer in communities near the parks. The general fund dollars that would normally be allocated to parks will be freed up for education, highways, social services, etc.

People have complained that regular tax dollars should cover expenses like taking care of our parks. In a perfect world, that would be the case. Parks need to be maintained , cared for, and kept open NOW. This small surcharge will allow every Californian free entry and dedicate a funding source that is not at the mercy of the political climate and the election cycle.

Hundreds of volunteers worked thousands of hours to obtain the 700,000 signatures to get this measure on the November ballot (after two failed legislative attempts). There was no corporate funding. Now we are spending days and weeks increasing voter awareness during the campaign phase of this process.

YES ON PROP 21 FOR YOUR STATE PARKS

When State Parks had money to spend (about 10 years ago), very little of it went towards the preservation and conservation of its natural assets. Instead, almost all of State Parks’ budget went into development (sometimes necessary to replace inadequate facilities, but often resulting in damage to wildlife and plant habitats) and law enforcement. While rangers got huge stipends for target practice and ammunition, and new vehicles, and trainings every month, the environmental scientists (the very few that are employed full-time), archaeologists, historians, and natural and cultural resources programs had almost no permanent funding.

Invasive species have proliferated in state parks, rare species are left without adequate protection from visitor impacts, and State Parks has adopted a strategy of corporate-beholden contracting with private businesses for concessions, essentially selling jobs and State Parks assets to the highest bidders. Trails have become eroded gullies and trees die from disease, yet maintenance and resources budgets are inadequate to handle the levels of public use. Public education and enforcement of State Parks regulations and State laws (dogs off-leash, anyone?) are scant, so visitors don’t learn much about appropriate land stewardship and resource protection. How will Proposition 21 address such egregious imbalances of priorities and funding?

State Parks rangers rarely spend any time on enforcing laws and educating the public about human environmental impacts. Many State Parks facilities suffered even when funding was greater (if not sufficient), and budget allocations to “resource” (not a good word to use in the context of conservation) management were and are miniscule compared with the outputs for wannabe cops and their guns. Moreover, in the past few years, law enforcement in State Parks purchased dozens, if not hundreds, of brand new vehicles. State Parks rangers also get Homeland Security funding, as somehow the message that a healthy environment might make all of us more secure has been washed away in a current of fear and deception. In addition, law enforcement officers can retire at 55 with almost 100% of their salaries, while other STate Parks employees get far less for retirement benefits. How will Prop. 21 address altering the imbalance between law enforcement and all the other essential jobs and roles necessary to manage public lands?

I pose these additional questions to Prop. 21 advocates, State Parks and Resources Agency management, and State legislators, how will Prop. 21, or any other increase in funding for State Parks in the future, address the abysmal inequities of prior funding allocations? How can Parks visitors and those who vote in favor of Prop. 21 have any confidence that State Parks will be managed according to its mission statement, instead of turning that mission statement inside out at the behest of the corporate-friendly, law enforcement mentality that runs the Department?

In closing, and for the purpose of full disclosure, I was blacklisted from future employment in the Department for speaking my mind about mismanagement and resources abuse in State Parks.