Home » Voter Information » Elections » Ballot Measures » In Depth on Measure Annual Vehicle License Surcharge for State Parks

In Depth on Measure Annual Vehicle License Surcharge for State Parks

Pros & Cons - In Depth

Ballot Measure: 
Annual Vehicle License Surcharge for State Parks
Supplemental Information: 

BACKGROUND TO THE PROPOSITION

The California State Park System encompasses 278 state parks with 1.4 million acres of parkland, including 3000 miles for hiking, biking, equestrian trails, and beaches. The system operates parks in areas as diverse as the redwood forests, the deserts, the Sierra Nevada, the beaches, Hearst Castle and the vestiges of colonial Russia.

The California State Park and Recreation Commission advises the department on proposed state park system projects. The Commission’s nine members are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the state Senate; they serve three-year terms.

For the last five years, park operations have cost about $300 million annually with about $150 million coming from the state General Fund. Capital improvements to existing parks are largely funded by voter approved bond issues.

The parks have no dedicated annual funding source. Twice in the past two years, the state parks were on the verge of being shut down, and only last-minute budget reprieves kept them open--and these were only partial reprieves. In 2009, 150 state parks were shut down part-time or had service reductions due to a lack of funds. More budget cuts this year caused the partial closure or deep reductions in the hours of operation at nearly 60 state parks.

Wildlife conservation programs are managed by other state departments such as Fish and Game, conservancies such as the State Wildlife Conservation Board, and state agencies such as the Ocean Protection Council. They are funded for about $100 million per year from the General Fund, regulatory fees, and bond funds. 

RELATIONSHIP TO PROPOSITION 26

Proposition 26, also on the November 2, 2010 ballot, would generally mandate that additional taxes and fees imposed by state or local governments have a two-thirds approval, and by its terms would repeal all taxes and fees added after January 1, 2010 unless they were passed again by a two-thirds vote. However, the provisions of Proposition 26 do not apply to statewide initiatives approved by a vote of the people, such as Proposition 21.

Arguments In Support: 
  • Prop 21 creates a long-term dedicated, reliable, and adequate funding source for the state park system.
  • Prop 21 will free up more than $130 million annually in the General Fund for other vital public services.
  • Recent budget cuts and chronic underfunding have resulted in badly deteriorated facilities and a $1 billion backlog in maintenance and repairs.
  • Prop 21 will give California vehicles free year-round day-use admission to state parks.

.

Arguments In Opposition: 
  • Prop 21 is a cynical ploy by Sacramento insiders to bring back the “Car Tax” of $1 billion every two years.
  • Prop 21 raises far more money than necessary to maintain state parks.
  • Prop 21 is just more “ballot box budgeting” that makes Sacramento dysfunctional by raising your taxes without addressing California’s chronic budget woes.
  • Prop 21 is a “shell game” to convince voters that the parks will not be funded if we don’t vote for this measure.
More about Supporters: 

Yes on 21: Californians for State Parks and Wildlife Conservation • www.yesforstateparks.com

Proposition 21 is supported by organizations such as The Nature Conservancy; Pacific Gas & Electric Co.; California Teachers Association; California Nurses Association; California Alliance for Retired Americans; Public Health Institute; California Travel Industry Association; Boy Scouts of America; Sierra Club California; Audubon California; California State Lifeguard Association; California State Conference of the NAACP; California School Employees Association; State Park Peace Officers Association of California; California State Park Rangers Association; and California Teamsters Public Affairs Council.

The Argument In Favor is signed by Jim Adams, Regional Executive Director, Pacific Region, National Wildlife Federation; Mike Sweeney, Executive Director, the Nature Conservancy California; and Pamela Jo Armas, President, California State Park Rangers Association. The Rebuttal to the Argument Against is signed by Graham Chisholm, Executive Director, Audubon California; Jan Lewis, State Chair, California Action for Healthy Kids; and Elizabeth Goldstein, President, California State Parks Foundation.

Major Financial Contributors:
Nature Conservancy - $1,441,864  •  California State Parks Foundation - $660,032
Save the Redwoods League - $600,000  •  Peninsula Open Space Trust - $400,000
Sempervirens Funds - $400,000  •  Anne G. Earhart - $250,000
National Audubon Society - $200,000  •  Pacific Gas & Electric - $150,000
Julie Packard - $150,000  •  Wildlands Support Fund - $108,177
California Conservation Campaign - $100,000  •  Big Sur Land Trust - $100,000

 

More about Opponents: 

Californians Against Car Taxes, No on Proposition 21 • http://www.voteno21.com/

Proposition 21 is opposed by, among others, Michelle Steel, Member, California Board of Equalization; the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and Californians Against Car Taxes.

The Argument Against and the Rebuttal to the Argument in Favor are signed by Peter Foy, California Chairman, Americans for Prosperity; and Michelle Steel, Member, California Board of Equalization.

Major Financial Contributors:
As of August 20, 2010, no information has been reported as to any significant contributions in opposition to Proposition 21.

References: 

Official Material and Overviews: 

News, Opinion and Other Sources: