Ask the state to spare the parks?

At the city council meeting Wednesday night, vice-mayor Ken Brown called Governor Schwarzenegger’s plan to close 48 state parks “ridiculous,” and he urged the council to support the Save Our State Parks Campaign.
“The Governor’s proposal to close 48 state parks will affect everyone,” said Brown. “Next time, it could be our parks: it could be the Mission, it could be the Barracks,” he said, attempting to put the plan–which currently does not affect any parks in the City of Sonoma–in larger perspective. He pointed out that the closures of parks outside the city would deprive residents of Sonoma who regularly enjoy them, and it would affect Sonoma businesses, which benefit from the tourist trade the parks attract. “I think we all realize the tourism boost that parks and state facilities bring to the our city and other cities in Sonoma County.” He said the parks closure would be a miniscule savings in the whole state budget. “Parks are something like six one-hundredths of a percent of the savings here in the state’s budget. It’s ridiculous. So I see that [voting for the measure] would create a kind of solidarity with the jurisdictions that are losing their parks.”
Laurie Gallian, the only member of the public to speak on the subject, said, “As someone who came from New Jersey, one of the most beautiful things about California is its state parks. I have never ceased to be impressed by the state parks of California. I would definitely urge you to send a letter of support, because it is a right of the people of California to have this.”
Councilmember Steve Barbose agreed. “To my way of thinking, of course we don’t want to lose state parks,” he said. “I’ve been to Armstrong Park and it’s just wonderful, and the people there love it just as much as we love Jack London Park. So I think we really do need to stand together with the other communities and oppose this.” Councilmember Sebastiani said he didn’t think one body should advise another on how to do its business, and none of his constituents has indicated he should support this, so he would not.
The discussion that followed centered not so much about the value of the parks, but whether appealing to the state to spare the parks would invite a raid on the city’s coffers. “The state has to balance its budget,” Sanders said. “The cuts have to come from somewhere. If we have to stand for the people we represent, why would we want to send any message other than about something that directly affects our city? I think it’s risky business. So I’m totally, totally against this.”
Love of parks won out, if narrowly, and the measure passed, three to two, with Sanders and Sebastiani opposed.