6 California parks could revert to federal control

[one...two...tree 2,762]

By Julie Cart, LA Times

The National Park Service has informed Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger that his budget-cutting proposal to indefinitely close 220 California state parks could compel the federal government to take control of six parks that occupy former U.S. property, including Angel Island in San Francisco Bay, Point Sur State Historic Park in coastal Big Sur and Point Mugu State Park near Malibu.

In a June 8 letter, Jon Jarvis, regional director of the park service, reminded the governor that the terms of the agreement that transferred federal lands to the state require that unless the parks are open to the public "in perpetuity," the property could revert to government hands.

Schwarzenegger's current budget calls for closing at least 80% of California's state park system, for a projected saving of $143 million. Democrats have suggested a $15 vehicle license fee surcharge to continue funding the parks, which the governor and other Republicans have so far rejected.

The park service characterized the two-page letter -- which surfaced last week -- as informational.

"We saw the list of potential park closures and we thought the governor needed to know the potential consequences of closing the parks, given the agreement," said David Siegenthaler, a program manager at the National Park Service.

more...

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-pa...story?track=rss

[Ban Hammer 14,668]

is this a bad thing?

[Peikko 1,575]

You don't like 'big government' so why would you think allowing state parkland to revert back to fed government would be a good thing?

[Ban Hammer 14,668]

You don't like 'big government' so why would you think allowing state parkland to revert back to fed government would be a good thing?

thanks for the non-answer.

[lostinblue 1,989]

Treat it like the rest of the poor folk do .....sell it.

http://www.nationalatlas.gov/printable/fedlands.html#list

Federal government owns too much land anyway. If you looked at the forclosed homes in this country it would be a lot bigger.

[Nagishkaw 510]

Rent it .

[dalegg 143]

and when the feds start to talk about closing them then does China step in and take control?

Edited July 7, 2009 by dalegg

[Danno 1,228]

For them to REVERT would mean they once were controlled by the FED.

Whats wrong with giving them back if you can't keep up with the payment?

Anyway, it's common to donate land or property when one can not manage it any longer.

Perhaps they could put a clause... If Cal. ever stops with the insane social give-away programs and balances the books, the parks can revert back to the state of Cal. ... until then, they can't be trusted to even manage a park service.

[Immigrant2009 0]

By Julie Cart, LA Times

The National Park Service has informed Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger that his budget-cutting proposal to indefinitely close 220 California state parks could compel the federal government to take control of six parks that occupy former U.S. property, including Angel Island in San Francisco Bay, Point Sur State Historic Park in coastal Big Sur and Point Mugu State Park near Malibu.

In a June 8 letter, Jon Jarvis, regional director of the park service, reminded the governor that the terms of the agreement that transferred federal lands to the state require that unless the parks are open to the public "in perpetuity," the property could revert to government hands.

Schwarzenegger's current budget calls for closing at least 80% of California's state park system, for a projected saving of $143 million. Democrats have suggested a $15 vehicle license fee surcharge to continue funding the parks, which the governor and other Republicans have so far rejected.

The park service characterized the two-page letter -- which surfaced last week -- as informational.

"We saw the list of potential park closures and we thought the governor needed to know the potential consequences of closing the parks, given the agreement," said David Siegenthaler, a program manager at the National Park Service.

more...

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-pa...story?track=rss

This is sucks. Don't understand why California law makers are so dumb not to come up with state budget solution for a long time.