Description

Once considered the best in the nation, California's state parks are falling apart due to chronic underfunding and mismanagement. The park system has a backlog of $1 billion in deferred maintenance and, last year, 150 of California's parks closed part-time or suffered service reductions.What's the solution? Supporters of Prop 21 believe that the answer lies in a new car tax. If Prop 21 passes in November, California drivers will have to pony up an additional 18 dollars fee.

Transcript

Paul: We’re here at the state park in Malibu, California. The coast line here is beautiful and the surf is legendary but do the states’ financial crisis. This park and the entire California state park system is in peril. Leonard: Well California state parks are facing some massive challenges right now, they have a billion dollars in the furred maintenance meaning projects that they need but they don’t have money to fund. In addition you’ve got the physical challenges which if prompted the state parks to shut or reduce services at a hundred and fifty state parks over the last year. So California state parks like many out there are hurting right now and they’re looking for new sources of revenue. Paul: When public agencies go looking for new sources of revenue, they typically end up calling for an increase in taxes which is precisely what Prop 21 does. Leonard: Prop 21 would essentially establish a new annual 18 dollar fee that would get tacked on the vehicle registrations that will be dedicated to state parks. The California residence that own the 28 million vehicles that would be taxed would get free entry to the state parks, essentially driving up demand that the worst possible time for the parks system when they clearly can’t accommodate the demand they have already. Paul: Giving more tax payer money to a mismanaged park system is no guarantee that the parks would be saved, especially for number of visitors increases but more fundamental problem with Prop 21. Leonard: I think most people in California would say that it’s unfair to tax their vehicle which has nothing to do with state parks to essentially provide a subsidy for the folks that do happen to use state parks. Paul: So what’s the alternative? Leonard: Most people probably don’t realize it but many public parks at all levels of government are run successfully by private sector operators. Paul: We went to Sedona, Arizona and spoke with Warren Meyer, the owner of a company called Recreation Resource Management. Warren: We run about a hundred and fifty parks, some of those are camp grounds, some are what we call day use séance which is like a picnic area like here at custom made ranch and our biggest client is US force service which is also the largest recreation provider for public recreation provider in the world. Leonard: This is not something new, this is not something untested. its happening literally next door to many state parks that are suffering right now. Paul: Cool benefits when public agencies contract with private companies to manage parks. Warren: Really everybody is a winner in the whole thing. Hopefully we make a profit which is great. That’s what we’re in business to do and an opportunity for us. But the state agency or the public agency is a winner because typically they’re taking something as a financial loser for them, a real money drain and by having us run it and change it from a money drain into a financial benefit because we’re actually getting paid rent. Paul: What about the interest of the park users, how for example did the parks run by Meyer’s company compared to the publicly run state parks in Arizona? Warren: Last year three of the public camp grounds we run were in the top five of the rankings and none of the top ten were from Arizona state parks. Paul: Privately run parks are often better managed than publicly run parks because parks run by the government operate within a different incentive structure. Warren: They don’t really see the user fees, they don’t get to take benefit at that, a lot that gets dump right into the treasury and so they don’t think about as okay we you know if we have more visitors as more fees which allows us to spend more money or to be better on our budget. They think because they have just the expense budget they think of every incremental visitor as a problem, as an expense. Paul: A former park ranger in California, Kelly Moffit is working for Meyer’s company for the past ten years. Kelly: We just don’t have the restrictions that keep us caught up in time delays that sometimes can work the detriment of the resource and we can react faster and we can do so under the supervision and the evaluating eyes of our public partners. So I think that’s the perfect relationship, I’ve seen it work really well. Paul: Ok, so privately managed parks are often better run than publicly run parks and they generate money for the government rather than requiring a subsidy. So why isn’t there more support for privately managed parks? Warren: One of the first things I always say is you’re going to build a McDonalds in front all faithful, I hear that all the time. You’re going to build condos, you’re going to build a golf course. If you take a walk around this facilities you see them very natural that’s because in my contracts the tone and the character of the park is set by the agency and its my job and it’s a big part of the bid I make is I explain to them how that I understand the tone and character they want to maintain in the park and express my commitment and impress at the writing of the contract to maintain that character. In fact I can’t put two boards together with a nail without approval from the public authority. Paul: Other skeptic of public, private partnership so worried that the focus on the bottom line will inevitably result in jacked up prices. Warren: There’s a meeting about public parks right here in Sedona and it was brought up that all the you know the private company is going to raise prices because you know they’re poor profit you know greedy folks. Actually it dropped fees this year, this used to be a ten dollar visitation here. Its going to be nine next year over at adjacent state park over the Slide Rock Park, they actually, the state run facility the state park actually raise its fees this year from ten dollars to twenty dollars. So that’s the real irony of it, it’s the private company out here drop on fess while the public agency is raising them. Paul: Another concern people often have is the private companies won’t have a sufficiently long term view. Warren: That always logical somehow for private measure of parks that I’m not going to spend any money to keep the place nice but my revenue is entirely dependent on people showing up everyday. Stores and gas stations and everybody else, they rejuvenate those places every twenty years, I keep them fixed up because I want people coming back. Pure knows at a state parks and they’ll admit it, they haven’t put any capital maintenance large, long term maintenance into their parks for years because it has to be appropriated every year. So without that appropriation because it’s a budget football every year out of their control, you know they end up with no capital maintenance money. I on the other hand have my budget or control and can spend it the right way. Paul: All things considered. Contracting with private companies to manage state parks seems like a winning idea but could this kind of public, private partnership work in California? In fact Meyer’s company already does business with McArthur-Berney Falls state park in Northern California. Warren: What we actually have a loop of camping which will be one circular road that has about twenty four camp sites on it is a bathroom. They said this is the last part of the camp ground we need to refurbish and we cannot afford to do it. I said well I will do it if you’ll allow me to operate so what I did is actually put you know a half a million dollars of cabins in this loop made it more attractive to the customer and then in return for spending that capital, the state gave me a twenty year operating lease to run those cabins to help me get my money back for making the investment. Paul: So what’s the bottom line here? Leonard: Instead of imposing a sneaky new tax on drivers in California what policy makers should be doing is relying more on public, private partnership and private recreation management companies that can take a revenue losing state park and actually turn it to a revenue generating asset for the state. Kelly: Everyone likes parks, everyone likes these natural areas and we all like to appreciate them. Its really, it’s a difference in the way we approach the operational and then the management objectives of each park. Paul: For Reason TV, I’m Paul Feine.