CORRECTION: Governor’s office MISINFORMED me on Friday. State Park closure NOT REVERSED.

June 1st, 2009:     9:40 a.m.

I called the Governor’s office this morning to confirm what I had been told on Friday by someone at the Governor’s office.  The fellow with whom I had spoken on Friday, in response to my question whether the Governor had reversed his posiiton to close the state parks, said, “it’s not a vicious rumor,” and directed me to the topmost PDF link marked, “Revision,” dated May 29th.  He was not willing to stay on the phone while I looked through that Revision.  Upon viewing this Revision, I found no mention of state park closure.  That is how I came to post what today is confirmed NOT to be true.

Here is how the webpage appears, at:

Governor’s Budget

As you can see, since each of the three items topping this list is marked, “Revision,” and the first two, “Revision with Additional …”, one reasonably concludes that the topmost of these listed “Revisions” supercedes any of those Revisions marked at an earlier date, that the topmost file

2009-10 May Revision with Addtional $2.8 Billion in Solutions  5/29/09 (.pdf, <1 MB) 

file would have within it the information already appearing in the file below it, 

2009-10 May Revision with Additional $5.5 Billion Spending Reductions  5/26/09 (.pdf, <1 MB)

but with the new “Solutions” information tacked on, and that is precisely what the fellow had himself believed.

After concluding the telephone contact with this fellow, I opened the latest (topmost) Revision listed, dated May 29th, and concluded that the Park closure had indeed been reveresed since it does NOT include mention of eliminating funding to the State Parks.

This morning I am informed by the Governor’s office that the topmost Revision, dated May 29th, constitutes an “additional” Revision consisting of additional proposals (“Solutions”).  What the Governor’s office assistants have failed to understand is that they mean ” Supplemental Revision to … .”   The May 29th “Revision” is adding to the  previous “Revision” file dated earlier than May 29th.

Wouldn’t you also reasonably conclude that the information within the May 26th “Revision” would also appear in the latest “Revision” of May 29th?  In my experience, use of the word “Revision” in this situation is incorrect, leading the viewer to expect that the info on “Budget Reductions” of May 26th, is included within the more recent “Revision,” that the most recent “Revision” constitutes an aggregate of previous “Revisions.”

Do you concur that since the “Budget Reductions” in fact do not appear in the more recent May 29th file marked, “Revision with additional… (“Solutions”)”, the more recent file should be marked as SUPPLEMENTAL to the previous May 26h “Revision” (marked with “Spending Reductions”)?  

The proposal to close the State Parks appears in the file listed second from the top:

2009-10 May Revision with Additional $5.5 Billion Spending Reductions  5/26/09 (.pdf, <1 MB)




May 29th, 3:15 p.m.

I got telephone confirmation from the Governor’s office that he has indeed removed the proposed closure of state parks from the proposed budget!



I just finished reading the article: “25 Bay Area parks may close from budget crisis“.

Please consider contacting the Governor’s office to voice your opinion on the matter. Below is my letter already sent via email.

Governor’s office Contact:

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger,​

I am writing to you to voice my strongest objection to this proposed funding cut.

It is at these times of grave economic downturn that the State Parks are needed the most. Also, as the article above indicated, there is more to LOSE in terms of state revenue after closure of these parks than with keeping them open and funded. And further, even with the horrendous cascade of direct and indirect employment loss, a mere 0.2 percent of the total budget deficit is to be gained from closing these parks! A drop in the bucket! That alone sends red-flag signals to the public that there may exist an underlying motive for this proposal: sticking it to us for refusing the further tax constraints put before us on the special election day of May 19th.

It’s high time that the State Government itself look closely at the cost of its own bureaucracy. Also, you can’t tell me that there aren’t special interest groups haggling for a sustaining thread for projects/​ventures that are more self-oriented than focused on public service.

Identify the true leeches and cast them out.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to CORRECTION: Governor’s office MISINFORMED me on Friday. State Park closure NOT REVERSED.

  1. Carolyn says:

    I total agree…what possible advanges could the state make by closing the state parks…. I am not wealthy but I do go camping for 2 weeks out of every year to enjoy this beautiful state of ours…. I have emailed the govenor many times…. This is WRONG….. as a visitor to the state parks we pay a fee…we are not asking for something that we do not pay for….. What in the world is he doing to this great state….In a few months he will no longer be a govenor and we will be in a mess……Not to mention what he has done to the Medi-Cal receipents….taking away dental and eye care….to name a few things…..I voted for this man for this I am deeply ashamed.


    • opey606 says:

      Hi Carolyn,

      3:15 p.m.

      I have confirmed by telephone with the Governor’s office that he has indeed REMOVED the proposal to close any state parks in California!

      The May 29th revision of the budget proposal can be seen here:

      WE DID IT!


      • Carolyn says:

        Our local news said that they will not make a decision on the parks closure until July…. and no parks will be closed before Labor day. I sure pray that you are correct and that the news is wrong..What this man is doing to this state is near criminal…. They did raise the state tax by 1%…. I dont get it why keep trying to hurt the poor???


  2. Carolyn says:

    I kind of figured that those were additional cuts.. This state is a mess….and will be in a bigger mess if they lose the revenue that our State parks bring in.


    • opey606 says:

      Hi Carolyn,

      The Governor’s Finance office posted another PDF file on their website, dated yesterday, this one marked as a “Comprehensive List,” with no change in verbiage on the proposed budget cuts to State Parks. It’s interesting, though, to contemplate exactly what that verbiage means:

      Eliminate General Fund funding for State Parks–Eliminate all General Fund support and require department to operate on fee revenue and special funding.”

      … hmmm …. “special funding” … It remains to be seen to what extent “special funding” translates into a “shoestring.”


  3. Carolyn says:

    I received this email from the Govenor yesterday….

    Thank you for writing to me about funding for our state parks system. Your input is important to me during these challenging times. California’s natural beauty is renowned throughout the world, and I have made it my priority to protect our environment so future generations of Californians can continue to experience and enjoy what we have all come to love. Our state parks provide a fantastic introduction to the California experience and help bring our residents and visitors closer to our landscapes. Unfortunately, the state cannot continue to bear the costs of supporting every program. Believe me when I say that these cuts have been the hardest decisions of my career as Governor, but we are in the midst of the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression. Our revenues for the coming year are at least 27 percent below where they were projected to be just two short years ago. We now face a shortfall that has grown to $24.3 billion, and the people of California have made their voice clear: they want the state to live within its means and solve its problems through spending cuts and not tax increases. To help manage our budget shortfall, I have proposed eliminating General Fund support for the Department of Parks and Recreation. I understand that these cuts will impact not only the lives of our park employees but the millions of park visitors who visit these national treasurers every year. In spite of these General Fund cuts, though, I will work to keep as many parks open as possible with funding from user fees. It may require raising entry and camping fees, expanding partnerships with local government and non-profit groups, and seeking additional creative ways to support our system in the future. As I work with my partners in the Legislature to find solutions to these problems, know I will keep your thoughts in mind. Working together, I believe we can weather this storm and start the slow but steady march back toward prosperity.

    Sincerely, Arnold Schwarzenegger


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s