This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Community Corner

California Park Closures Upset Local Park Leaders

Last week the state released a list of 70 parks that could be closed as early as July 1 to help deal with California's severe budget crisis. Beverly Lane of the East Bay Regional Park District calls that move "short sighted."

On July 1, 25 percent of the California State Parks system could be closed if a proposed plan goes forward. Local parks officials and residents are responding to the news with concern and disappointment.

On May 13, the California Department of Parks and Recreation issued a list of 70 of the state’s 278 parks that it recommends be closed to help meet the $22 million General Fund budget cuts required by Gov. Jerry Brown and the Legislature, in an effort to reduce the state’s $5.4 billion budget deficit.

The department is responding to an $11 million cut in funding this fiscal year, and an anticipated $22 million cut next year, mandated by Assembly Bill 95, approved by the legislature and signed by Gov. Brown in March.

Find out what's happening in Newarkwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Ruth Coleman, director of the California State Parks department, said in a statement, “We regret closing any park, but with the proposed budget reductions over the next two years, we can no longer afford to operate all parks within the system.”

Many have been critical of closing assets in a program that largely helps, not hurts, the state, but officials says despite the large numbers of parks recommended for closure, “at least 92 percent of today’s attendance will be retained, 94 percent of existing revenues will be preserved, and 208 parks will remain open.”

Find out what's happening in Newarkwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

The criteria considered for the parks on the current list were:

  • Statewide significance
  • Visitation
  • Fiscal strength
  • Ability to physically close.
  • Existing partnerships
  • Infrastructure
  • Land use restrictions

To prevent state parks from being closed, state lawmakers are considering legislation, such as Senate Bill 580 (Wolk/Kehoe), to enact strong protections to preserve the integrity of the state’s parks system; and Assembly Bill 42 (Huffman), to encourage partnerships with non-profit organizations to enter into operating agreements with the state.

Locally, those involved with parks management and open space preservation are upset about the closures and concerned about the reduced public access to public lands.

“All of us who value parks and open space are upset to see these parks closed,” says Beverly Lane, President of the East Bay Regional Park District Board of Directors. “In my opinion, closing state parks is short-sighted and does almost nothing to solve the state’s budget woes.”

“In this period when people are stretching their dollars, access to public parks is hugely important,” Lane pointed out. “As with the East Bay Regional Park District, state parks offer nearby, inexpensive opportunities for families to get outdoors, exercise, learn about the environment and relieve stress in their lives.”

Although no East Bay parks were on the current list, parks like Mount Diablo State Park have been considered in the previous two lists offered by state parks officials to deal with the budget deficit.

Lane says Mount Diablo may have been spared this time because of its “iconic nature and the state’s ability to get some gate revenues for support,” and the multiple access points to the park which make it “impossible to close.”

The East Bay Regional Park District currently operates three state parks that were also spared from the list: Del Valle Regional ParkCrown Memorial State Beach, and Eastshore State Park.

The existing partnership between the park district and the state played a role in sparing these parks from closure, according to the criteria the state used.

Lane says these parks are sustained “using funds from East Bay residents, not the state.”

Coleman says the existing partnerships (currently 32 with cities, counties, and non-profits) serve as a “successful template” the department intends to expand.

Lane says the partnerships “are only successful if the partner is in it for the long haul and the partner is a public agency that manages funds well.”

She says that as a large two-county parks district, managing nearly 100,000 acres and 65 parks, the East Bay Regional Park District acts as a powerful advocate to protect local parks by bringing its resources and “expertise and devotion to the public to the table.” 

The state has also said they plan to protect the closed parks, with the intention of possibly re-opening them in the future.

Lane doesn’t consider that plan to be feasible.

“When a park is closed with no regular patrols or maintenance, it is likely to be very costly to re-open,” she says.

Adding to that, Lane says the lands will become vulnerable to other serious problems.

"Large parks already have to cope with marijuana cartels which look for unattended areas to plant huge marijuana plantations, and fire prevention is essential as well,” she says.

Lists have been proposed before, and each time the public’s outcry has resulted in closures being avoided, and other cost cutting measures, such as reduced hours and staffing, and even reduction in restroom supplies, being implemented.

Lane recommends anyone concerned about park closures should make their voices heard by local representatives.

“Citizens need to tell their elected officials how important parks are to them,” she says. “If officials hear nothing, parks are always vulnerable.”

More information about the proposed park closures can be found by visiting the California State Parks Foundation website.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?

More from Newark