Saturday, May 30, 2009

State Parks Are NOT Necessary

I like State Parks and for that matter National Parks, but this mornings Bee screams that the "Governor puts parks on hit list" and details that "only" 59 (out of 279) would remain open.

State Parks are nice, but thay are NOT a necessary function of State Government. They SHOULD be cut and the savings that we get from these cuts are around $210million over two years.

Just think about that for a second.

While Parks can serve a purpose, is it a function as envisioned by the Founders and Framers that TAX dollars, taken at the point of a gun would be used to force us to pay for leisure destinations and/or historical preservation? I am all about preserving history, but it should be done at a reasonable cost and with selective consideration.

In the first place, 279 State Parks is waaay too many. Fifty-Nine might still be too many, if you run the math, the cost of running the State Parks is over $1million PER PARK per year.

There aren't very many places in the world that are worth that to begin with, let along the savings being worth that.

Again, State Parks might be nice, but is that what the State Government is SUPPOSED to be doing? Or is it just job creation for State employees?


No comments:

Post a Comment