Further evidence that we can't even afford to operate our existing
parks let alone buy and or form new ones.
Posted by John Mumaw on February 23, 2010 at 7:30 PM
Further evidence that we can't even afford to operate our existing
parks let alone buy and or form new ones.
True enough, but sadly the states are required to balance their budgets, while the federal government can just print money to purchase whatever it needs.
Posted by Todd Caudle on February 23, 2010 at 7:34 PM
Ah, that long tradition, the Washington Monument Gambit. As in, "We're so sorry you won't allow us to raise taxes, but instead of cutting out some of the real bloat in our budget, howzabout we shut down some of the things you people actually care about?"
Posted by Erik Stensland on February 23, 2010 at 7:57 PM
We were in AZ earlier this month and things there are really bad. They are closing libraries, laying off police, closing roadside rest areas, roads are deteriorating and the cops are everywhere trying to bring in some much needed cash. I was shocked at how bad things were down there.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on February 24, 2010 at 12:06 PM
Ah, that long tradition, the Washington Monument Gambit. As in, "We're so sorry you won't allow us to raise taxes, but instead of cutting out some of the real bloat in our budget, howzabout we shut down some of the things you people actually care about?"
Always nice to assume the government is wasting money and that cuts can be made somewhere you wont feel it. Certainly takes away any feeling of responsibility for a social contract.
Working at the core of a local government (I run the financial systems), I can ensure you that we have cut year after year where the citizens wouldn't see it immediately. We've slashed our training budget, which affects our long term performance. We have cut expenses down and attempted to automate as much of our processing as possible, but the cuts can only go so far before you reach bone. Once that happens, limbs are severed, services are affected. We have fixed costs. Like any business, to attract and keep qualified people we need to pay competitive wages. If I pay a fireman 20% less than a neighboring city, that fireman will eventually pick up and move to provide a better life for his family. Significant expenses are incurred in the training of fire and police officers (really any worker) and other cities will benefit from our loss.
The government provides two core services. Build the infrastructure needed for commerce to succeed and thrive. Build the protection needed to protect property rights and maintain civil society. Those two functions provide the foundations for business to operate and any functions outside of those functions government is provided luxury services. We could let business build this infrastructure, let every street become a toll road, but this creates barriers to entry and costs for other business. While parks provide secondary benefits in terms of recreation and tourism attractions, for most cities they are NOT a necessary part of the infrastructure. The exception is in cities where tourism or recreation is their primary economic driver. Cities such as Glenwood Springs, Vail, etc... In those cities, to cut park funding would be cutting their own throat.
As John pointed out, since states and localities are required to operate with balanced budgets, we cannot inflate our way out of financial distress and we really have very few options. In most cases, we've already made cuts that will have long term detrimental effects on our infrastructure.
The assumption that business will flock to regions with low taxes is also proving false as one western corporation after another is acquired by coastal competitors. I don't see any of them flocking here for the cheap tax rates and swarms of lower-wage well educated workers. There are some bright spots in bio-tech and IT technology, but these may just be the next to go. There are talks again that Qwest may be heading towards merger.
I believe there are two functions that may be influencing these actions. First, services and infrastructure are better suited for business growth in the coastal regions. Second, although the taxes are much higher, the tax strategy appears to be more sustainable so large shifts are not expected. Businesses may be looking for more predictable long term outcomes even if it costs them a couple points.
Its a shame that Arizona is forced to close its parks. Most states and localities are in the same position right now.
Posted by Mark Rewald on February 24, 2010 at 12:42 PM
Well said Mel!
Posted by Brian Jackson on February 24, 2010 at 5:11 PM
Working at the core of a local government (I run the financial systems), I can ensure you that we have cut year after year where the citizens wouldn't see it immediately. We've slashed our training budget, which affects our long term performance. We have cut expenses down and attempted to automate as much of our processing as possible, but the cuts can only go so far before you reach bone. Once that happens, limbs are severed, services are affected. We have fixed costs. Like any business, to attract and keep qualified people we need to pay competitive wages. If I pay a fireman 20% less than a neighboring city, that fireman will eventually pick up and move to provide a better life for his family. Significant expenses are incurred in the training of fire and police officers (really any worker) and other cities will benefit from our loss.
Mel I'm glad your area gov (I believe you work in Colorado Springs) is doing this. This isn't how the bigger picture is working. I work about 1/3 of the time out of DC for the Defense Dept and work regularly with all sorts of other government agencies and I can tell you personally that your money IS being wasted. And lots of it. I see it on a daily basis.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on February 24, 2010 at 7:24 PM
I've worked financial systems in the federal sector, the private sector and the local government. The DOD is well funded, but that isn't always the case in other federal agencies who are forced to run more lean. I can't say I've ever spent time in a National Park or Monument where the ranger talk campfire was fueled by greenbacks. There was some bad behavior a while back in MMS, and those responsible were punished, some with prison time if I remember correctly.
Even in the corporate world there is significant lost productivity and inefficient processes, and dare I say waste.
No organization runs permanently at 100% efficiency and the local government is no exception. But I don't believe there are any areas here operating in a deliberately wasteful manner.
Quite frankly, when we talk about things happening in DC, the scale of debt right now its my grandchildren's money being wasted.
But I also acknowledge that one tendency in government funding is responsible for wasteful funding. Its the budget process. When a budget is allocated for a department, there is typically a bit of slack designed into the budget. This is designed to cover unforeseeable expenses. At the end of the year rather than rewarding the department for not spending to their last dollar, they are "punished" with a reduced budget the in the following cycle. Unlike a business where profits roll forward, in government the balance sheet resets to zero at the end of each year. This isn't so much a problem where budgets are already declining, but in times where budgets are neutral or growing this becomes a problem. In my opinion, Agencies should be able to develop forward balance funds rather than the current resetting system.
Posted by Steve Sieren on February 24, 2010 at 10:18 PM
If local agencies do not take control of those parks who does? And what happens to the land?
Posted by Mel Ladewig on February 24, 2010 at 11:24 PM
I doubt the local governments are in a better situation to address the maintenance of the state parks. I think it was Phoenix that was in the news for its service closures. Based on the nature of western local governments, I doubt that any AZ city or county is in a much better fiscal condition.
My guess. AZ will take the California route. Chain off the park but they won't dispose of the land. It sounds like NY is headed this way too. I'll bet Colorado starts to go that way soon too. I don't know of any state park closures, but we have a massive revenue shortfall.
If times get better, then I suspect they'll reinstate the services.
Posted by Brian Jackson on February 25, 2010 at 12:14 PM
Great comments and insight here, Mel.
Ditto!
Posted by Kurt Budde on February 25, 2010 at 5:22 PM
If local agencies do not take control of those parks who does? And what happens to the land?
Steve; I'm assuming they're closing all services at said parks.. not locking people out. I'm not sure. Then again, I can see them doing just that. A few gates won't be stopping me from using them, anyway.
Posted by Bob Falcone on February 25, 2010 at 6:51 PM
Things are MUCH worse in Arizona than just closing parks. Near the end of last year, Arizona completely shut down the State Fire Marshals Office...
The results: No fire safety inspections of schools, nursing homes, etc. No fire/arson investigations. No fire certification exams. No hazardous materials inspections or responses. No support to small towns that don't have the personnel or funds to do these things themselves.
I'll get on my soapbox a little here... It's easy to be critical from way up in the cheap seats to say that your local government is wasting money. Most people don't attend city council or county commissioner meetings, and get their entire education about budgeting from their local (usually anti-government) media. Those that take the time to actually research spending usually find that the solution is much, much tougher than just saying "cut spending".
Discussion
13 replieshttp://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/16/nation/la-na-arizona-parks16-2010jan16
Further evidence that we can't even afford to operate our existing
parks let alone buy and or form new ones.
True enough, but sadly the states are required to balance their budgets, while the federal government can just print money to purchase whatever it needs.
Always nice to assume the government is wasting money and that cuts can be made somewhere you wont feel it. Certainly takes away any feeling of responsibility for a social contract.
Working at the core of a local government (I run the financial systems), I can ensure you that we have cut year after year where the citizens wouldn't see it immediately. We've slashed our training budget, which affects our long term performance. We have cut expenses down and attempted to automate as much of our processing as possible, but the cuts can only go so far before you reach bone. Once that happens, limbs are severed, services are affected. We have fixed costs. Like any business, to attract and keep qualified people we need to pay competitive wages. If I pay a fireman 20% less than a neighboring city, that fireman will eventually pick up and move to provide a better life for his family. Significant expenses are incurred in the training of fire and police officers (really any worker) and other cities will benefit from our loss.
The government provides two core services. Build the infrastructure needed for commerce to succeed and thrive. Build the protection needed to protect property rights and maintain civil society. Those two functions provide the foundations for business to operate and any functions outside of those functions government is provided luxury services. We could let business build this infrastructure, let every street become a toll road, but this creates barriers to entry and costs for other business. While parks provide secondary benefits in terms of recreation and tourism attractions, for most cities they are NOT a necessary part of the infrastructure. The exception is in cities where tourism or recreation is their primary economic driver. Cities such as Glenwood Springs, Vail, etc... In those cities, to cut park funding would be cutting their own throat.
As John pointed out, since states and localities are required to operate with balanced budgets, we cannot inflate our way out of financial distress and we really have very few options. In most cases, we've already made cuts that will have long term detrimental effects on our infrastructure.
The assumption that business will flock to regions with low taxes is also proving false as one western corporation after another is acquired by coastal competitors. I don't see any of them flocking here for the cheap tax rates and swarms of lower-wage well educated workers. There are some bright spots in bio-tech and IT technology, but these may just be the next to go. There are talks again that Qwest may be heading towards merger.
I believe there are two functions that may be influencing these actions. First, services and infrastructure are better suited for business growth in the coastal regions. Second, although the taxes are much higher, the tax strategy appears to be more sustainable so large shifts are not expected. Businesses may be looking for more predictable long term outcomes even if it costs them a couple points.
Its a shame that Arizona is forced to close its parks. Most states and localities are in the same position right now.
Mel I'm glad your area gov (I believe you work in Colorado Springs) is doing this. This isn't how the bigger picture is working. I work about 1/3 of the time out of DC for the Defense Dept and work regularly with all sorts of other government agencies and I can tell you personally that your money IS being wasted. And lots of it. I see it on a daily basis.
Even in the corporate world there is significant lost productivity and inefficient processes, and dare I say waste.
No organization runs permanently at 100% efficiency and the local government is no exception. But I don't believe there are any areas here operating in a deliberately wasteful manner.
Quite frankly, when we talk about things happening in DC, the scale of debt right now its my grandchildren's money being wasted.
But I also acknowledge that one tendency in government funding is responsible for wasteful funding. Its the budget process. When a budget is allocated for a department, there is typically a bit of slack designed into the budget. This is designed to cover unforeseeable expenses. At the end of the year rather than rewarding the department for not spending to their last dollar, they are "punished" with a reduced budget the in the following cycle. Unlike a business where profits roll forward, in government the balance sheet resets to zero at the end of each year. This isn't so much a problem where budgets are already declining, but in times where budgets are neutral or growing this becomes a problem. In my opinion, Agencies should be able to develop forward balance funds rather than the current resetting system.
My guess. AZ will take the California route. Chain off the park but they won't dispose of the land. It sounds like NY is headed this way too. I'll bet Colorado starts to go that way soon too. I don't know of any state park closures, but we have a massive revenue shortfall.
If times get better, then I suspect they'll reinstate the services.
Ditto!
Steve; I'm assuming they're closing all services at said parks.. not locking people out. I'm not sure. Then again, I can see them doing just that. A few gates won't be stopping me from using them, anyway.
The results: No fire safety inspections of schools, nursing homes, etc. No fire/arson investigations. No fire certification exams. No hazardous materials inspections or responses. No support to small towns that don't have the personnel or funds to do these things themselves.
I'll get on my soapbox a little here... It's easy to be critical from way up in the cheap seats to say that your local government is wasting money. Most people don't attend city council or county commissioner meetings, and get their entire education about budgeting from their local (usually anti-government) media. Those that take the time to actually research spending usually find that the solution is much, much tougher than just saying "cut spending".
OK, I'm off my soapbox...